The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCouncil 03/21/2005 A AGENDA RENTON CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING March 21, 2005 Monday, 7:30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL 3. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: a. Award for Renton Airport Land Use Compatibility Program by WSDOT Aviation Division b. Municipal Court 2004 Annual Report 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master Program Growth Management Act Integration 5. APPEAL: Planning &Development Committee Report re: Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat INABILITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO TAKE TESTIMONY ON APPEALS DURING THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING State law requires that the City establish a process to handle appeals from application of environmental and developmental rules and regulations. The Renton City Council,feeling it was best for the elected 41600, representatives to handle the appeals rather than require citizens to go to court,has retained appellate jurisdiction to itself. The courts have held that the City Council,while sitting as an appellate body,is acting as a quasi-judicial body and must obey rules of procedure of a court more than that of a political body. By City Code,and by State law,the City Council may not consider new evidence in this appeal. The parties to the appeal have had an opportunity to address their arguments to the Planning&Development Committee of the City Council at a meeting previously held. Because of the court requirements prohibiting the City Council from considering new evidence,and because all parties have had an opportunity to address their concerns to the Planning&Development Committee,the City Council may not consider oral or written testimony at the City Council meeting. The Council understands that this is frustrating to citizens and is outside the normal process of open discourse provided to citizenry during the audience comment portion of the City Council meeting. However,this burden of not allowing the Council to be addressed concerning pending appeals is outweighed by the quick,easy,inexpensive and local appeal process provided by the Renton City Council. 6. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT 7. AUDIENCE COMMENT (Speakers must sign up prior to the Council meeting. Each speaker is allowed five minutes. The comment period will be limited to one-half hour. The second audience comment period later on in the agenda is unlimited in duration.) When you are recognized by the Presiding Officer,please walk to the podium and state your name and address for the record, SPELLING YOUR LAST NAME. ‘Witr✓ (CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE) 8. CONSENT AGENDA The following items are distributed to Councilmembers in advance for study and review, and the recommended actions will be accepted in a single motion. Any item may be removed for further discussion if requested by a Councilmember. Norie a. Approval of Council meeting minutes of March 14,2005. Council concur. b. City Clerk reports appeal of Hearing Examiner's recommendation on the Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat (PP-04-131); appeal filed by Sean K. Howe, 524 2nd Ave., Suite 500, Seattle, 98104,representing Cliff Williams of Ridgeview Court,LLC on 3/7/2005, accompanied by required fee. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Consideration of the appeal by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record,the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties(RMC 4-8-110F.6.). c. City Clerk submits petition for vacation of portion of unimproved road located between NW 6th St. and Rainier Ave. N.; petitioner Jack D. AIhadeff, 95 Tobin St.,#201,Renton,98055 (VAC- 05-002). Refer to Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator; set public hearing on 4/18/2005. (See 11.a. for resolution setting public hearing.) d. Community Services Department recommends approval of an ordinance increasing the fees at Henry Moses Aquatic Center. Council concur. (See 11.a. for ordinance.) e. Community Services Department recommends approval of a contract in the amount of$167,148 with J.A.Brennan Associates,PLLC for Heather Downs Park development architectural design services. Council concur. f. Community Services Department recommends approval of an amendment to the lease with Eoscene,Inc. (LAG-02-003)for space on the 4th and 6th floors of the 200 Mill Building for additional space and a lease term extension. Refer to Finance Committee. g. Development Services Division recommends approval, with conditions, of the Laurelhurst Phase 1 Final Plat;69 single-family lots on 15.7 acres located on the west side of Duvall Ave. NE at NE 2nd St. (FP-04-160). Council concur. (See 11.b. for resolution.) h. Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department recommends adoption of a resolution ratifying the 2004 amendments to the Growth Management Planning 1/4.01 Council's Countywide Planning Policies. Council concur. (See 11.c. for resolution.) i. Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department submits 60% Notice of Intent to annex petition for the proposed Maplewood Addition Annexation, and recommends a public hearing be set on 4/4/2005 to consider the petition and R-8 zoning; 60.5 acres bounded by Maple Valley Hwy. and the Cedar River. Council concur. j. Hearing Examiner recommends approval,with conditions, of the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat; 115-lot subdivision on 23 acres intended for townhouse units located at 4201 Lake Washington Blvd. N. (PP-02-040). Council concur. k. Legal Division recommends approval of revisions to the garbage ordinance to clarify and add definitions,make garbage collection mandatory with certain limited exceptions, add and clarify violations, and criminalize violations. Refer to Utilities Committee. 9. CORRESPONDENCE 10. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Topics listed below were discussed in Council committees during the past week. Those topics marked with an asterisk(*)may include legislation. Committee reports on any topics may be held by the Chair if further review is necessary. a. Transportation(Aviation)Committee: Temporary Closure of Sunset Blvd. N.,NE Sunset Blvd., &Houser Way Tunnel for Sewer Installation*;Trench Restoration&Street Overlay Requirements*; SR-169 Corridor Improvement Funding* b. Utilities Committee: Cedar River Broodstock Collection Facility 11. RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES Resolutions: a. Setting public hearing on 4/18/2005 for the Jack D. Alhadeff vacation petition for unimproved road located between NW 6th St. and Rainier Ave. N. (see 8.c.) b. Laurelhurst Final Plat (see 8.g.) (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) c. Countywide Planning Policies 2004 amendments (see 8.h.) d. Temporary street closures for sewer installation (see 10.a.) e. SR-169 Corridor improvement funding (see 10.a.) Ordinances for first reading: a. Henry Moses Aquatic Center fees (see 8.d.) b. Trench restoration &street overlay requirements(see 10.a.) c. R-1 zone community separators (Council approved 2128/2005) 12. NEW BUSINESS (Includes Council Committee agenda topics;call 425-430-6512 for recorded information.) 13. AUDIENCE COMMENT 14. ADJOURNMENT • COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA (Preceding Council Meeting) CANCELLED • Hearing assistance devices for use in the Council Chambers are available upon request to the City Clerk • CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE TELEVISED LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 21 AND ARE RE-CABLECAST TUES.&THURS.AT 11:00 AM&9:00 PM,WED.&FRI.AT 9:00 AM&7:00 PM AND SAT.&SUN.AT 1:00 PM&9:00 PM RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting March 21, 2005 Council Chambers Monday, 7:30 p.m. MINUTES Renton City Hall CALL TO ORDER Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. ROLL CALL OF TERRI BRIERE, Council President;MARCIE PALMER;DON PERSSON; COUNCILMEMBERS TONI NELSON; DAN CLAWSON;DENIS LAW. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL EXCUSE ABSENT COUNCILMEMBER RANDY CORMAN. CARRIED. CITY STAFF IN KATHY KEOLKER-WHEELER,Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Chief ATTENDANCE Administrative Officer; LAWRENCE J. WARREN, City Attorney; BONNIE WALTON,City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN,Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator; RYAN ZULAUF,Airport Manager; SANDRA MEYER, Transportation Systems Director;ALEX PIETSCH,Economic Development Administrator;REBECCA LIND,Planner Manager;JUDGE TERRY JURADO,Municipal Court;JOE MCGUIRE,Municipal Court Services Director;DEREK TODD,Assistant to the CAO; COMMANDER FLOYD ELDRIDGE,Police Department. SPECIAL John Sibold,Director of Aviation with the Washington State Department of PRESENTATIONS Transportation presented the City with the 2004 "Aviation Star of the Year" Airport: Compatible Land Use award for its Airport Compatible Land Use Program. Mr. Sibold read a letter Program,WSDOT Aviation from the Secretary of Transportation,Douglas B. MacDonald, thanking the City Star of the Year Award for its effort to protect the Airport for future generations. Noting the increasing development pressures around airports, Secretary McDonald indicated that it takes vision and courage to protect airports as essential public facilities. The letter concluded by applauding the City for implementing a comprehensive plan that recognizes the value of the Renton Airport to the State and local economies,and thanking the Planning Commission, Council, City staff and citizens for their efforts in developing the program. Councilman Persson and Mayor Keolker-Wheeler expressed their appreciation to City staff members Ryan Zulauf, Sandra Meyer, and Elizabeth Higgins, and to Councilmember Palmer for all their hard work on the program. Municipal Court: 2004 Annual Municipal Court Services Director Joe McGuire and Municipal Court Judge Report Terry Jurado presented the 2004 annual report of the Renton Municipal Court. • Mr. McGuire reported on the Washington State Supreme Court's ruling regarding the driving while license suspended statute, and on the resulting negative effect of this decision on the Municipal Court's revenue. He noted that legislation has been introduced to address this matter, and if passed, the changes felt in the criminal justice system as a result of the ruling will be reversed by the end of 2005. Mr. McGuire noted some personnel changes, which included the elimination of a Judicial Specialist position, the reclassification of a Judicial Specialist to a Judicial Specialist/Trainer, and the addition of a Probation Clerk position. He reviewed the court's revenues and expenditures for 2004, noting the revenue shortfall of$122,500 and the expenditure savings of$82,828. Mr. McGuire emphasized that the court uses its resources in the best way possible, and continues to find ways to be more efficient. March 21,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 92 Continuing,Judge Jurado reported that another factor negatively affecting court revenues is a decision of the Washington State Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee regarding the collection of costs as a result of agreements with defendants. Due to the decision that the costs collection is unlawful, he noted that the agreements are no longer possible. Judge Jurado also reviewed the reasons for his finding that a portion of Renton's criminal trespass ordinance is unconstitutional. Responding to Mayor Keolker-Wheeler's inquiries,Judge Jurado described the traffic infraction calendar process,and explained the reasons why domestic violence cases are dismissed. PUBLIC HEARING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Planning: Critical Areas accordance with local and State laws,Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the Ordinance public hearing to consider Renton's Best Available Science critical areas regulations and Shoreline Master Program Growth Management Act integration proposal. Lisa Grueter,consultant with Jones & Stokes Associates, stated that the purpose of the proposal is to meet Growth Management Act (GMA) and Shoreline Management Act(SMA) mandates, as well as Renton's Comprehensive Plan and goals for critical area protection, taking into consideration Renton's urban and environmental context. She noted that the City's protection of critical areas is multifaceted, and includes City ownership of some sensitive lands,regional collaboration with other jurisdictions,capital improvement programming, and critical area regulations. Ms.Grueter reviewed the City's current regulations, and listed the steps that have been taken so far in the development of the proposal. In regard to the State requirements,Ms. Grueter explained that the GMA requires protection of the following critical areas: wetlands, areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas,frequently flooded areas, and geologically hazardous areas. GMA also requires the use of Best Available Science(BAS) in City policies and regulations, which is defined as the use of information generated from a valid scientific process. The SMA requires that the Shoreline Management Program(SMP) be a part of the Comprehensive Plan, and that the City provide equivalent protection for shorelines of the State. She pointed out that the City must be able to demonstrate how BAS has been included in its plans and regulations. Ms. Grueter then reviewed the four main components of the City's proposal. 1. BAS Review. Ms. Grueter relayed that consultants conducted BAS literature reviews for both streams and wetlands. Additionally, an example code comparison was conducted on aquifer recharge,flood hazards,geologic hazards, and procedures. 2. Policy Amendments. Ms. Grueter noted the movement of the SMP policies to the Comprehensive Plan land use and environment elements. She also noted the addition of two shoreline topics, and the restructuring of the shoreline use priority policies. Ms. Grueter indicated that the environment element is the City's main focus,with its rivers and stream policies and floodplain policies. March 21,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 93 3. SMP Map Amendments. Ms. Grueter explained that the amendments address the map and text inconsistencies on the Black River, address the unclassified areas on the Cedar River, and clarify interpretation of aquatic environments. 4. Regulation Amendments. In regard to streams, Ms. Grueter stated that a stream classification system, stream buffers, and stream mitigation standards are proposed with the following principles: no net loss of stream function; inner and outer buffers (standard un-enhanced buffers and reduced buffers with enhancements); and standard and flexible review processes. She then reviewed the class system for water types as follows: Class 1 -Shorelines of the State (Salmonid Bearing) -Lake Washington,May Creek,Cedar River,Black River, Springbrook Creek. Class 2-Salmonid Bearing Stream-Examples are portions of Honey Creek, Maplewood Creek, and Panther Creek. Class 3 -Year Round,Non-Salmonid Bearing-Examples are Kennydale Creek, and Rolling Hills Creek. Class 4-Intermittent,Non-Salmonid Bearing-Examples are portions of Maplewood Creek and Gypsy Creek. Class 5 -Artificial,Non-Salmonid Bearing -Where no natural channel existed before. For the critical areas regulations, Ms. Grueter illustrated the processes for the different regulations and stream types using flow charts. She pointed out that Class 1 is different because it is in the SMP, and therefore administrated differently since it is a shared responsibility with the State. There are no shoreline exemptions in Class 1; some are exempt from a permit but none are exempt from the requirements. Additionally, Ms. Grueter used examples of already developed sites to further illustrate the processes. Continuing with the regulation amendments, Ms. Grueter explained that for the wetlands approach, the regulations retain the current wetland class system; retain standard buffers,but require that all proposals review whether criteria are met for increased buffers; and modify some exemptions to reduce potential for cumulative impacts. She reported that consultant Parametrix who conducted the initial BAS review,also assessed the characteristics of 17 representative wetlands in Renton and its Potential Annexation Area, and compared the City's and the Department of Ecology's differing methods of classifying wetlands and establishing buffers to protect existing functions and values. Ms. Grueter stated that the consultant determined that the City's classification system-together with its buffer requirements, its process to determine whether there is criteria that shows when a wider than standard buffer is appropriate, and its other code requirements -is sufficient to protect functions and values of wetlands in the City. She noted that minor regulation amendments are also proposed for the other critical areas. Moving on,Ms. Grueter stated that comments were received over time from State agencies, interest groups, and property owners. Responses to the comments included pointing out the flexibility of the regulations, or recommending additional supplemental amendments. She noted that the responses and supplemental recommendations concerned: existing and new March 21,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 94 development and streams and lakes, criteria for Class 1 water buffer reduction, wetland exemption, wetland buffers, wildlife habitat, and other housekeeping and clarification changes. In conclusion,Ms. Grueter reported that the next steps are for the Planning and Development Committee to consider the comments from the public hearing, and then present its recommendations to the full Council in April. She pointed out that the State needs to approve the shoreline amendments; therefore, they will not immediately go into effect. Alex Pietsch,Economic Development Administrator, said 1)the City is responding to the State's requirement to update the critical areas regulations, and 2) the City has taken an approach to balance the goals of protecting the shorelines and wetlands with the Growth Management Act, as development in urban areas needs to continue. Public comment was invited. Correspondence was read from John Mauro,Livable Communities Coalition Director, 1617 Boylston Ave., Suite 201, Seattle, 98122, suggesting five major improvements to the critical areas ordinance update concerning strengthening wetland protection, strengthening stream and riparian area protection, improving fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas protection, imposing substantive penalties for violations, and incorporating the "precautionary principle" that states that conservation planning should err on the side of protecting too much rather than protecting too little. Jerry Brennan,3405 Lake Washington Blvd. N.,Renton, 98056, stated that he is one of many affected by the proposed change in buffers from 25 to 100 feet, and noted that BAS has changed over the approximately five years in which he has been trying to install a dock. He asked that Council not conduct second and final reading of the ordinance earlier than April 11th to allow him time to complete his project. Chuck Pillon, 15753 SE Renton-Issaquah Rd.,Renton, 98059, stated that he is a 24-year veteran of law enforcement and has studied the public safety issues affected by BAS. He indicated that large woody debris in rivers and streams is supported by BAS,and he expressed concerns regarding the potential hazards of these debris installations to swimmers, and the potential risks to governmental entities. Mr. Pillon suggested that caution be used when applying BAS,especially when it affects public safety. Becky Stanley, Conservation Chair for the Cascade Chapter of the Sierra Club. 4108 48th Ave. S., Seattle, 98118, stated that Renton's critical areas ordinance does not adequately protect water quality, and she expressed concerns about the following: 1)the exemption from protection of all wetlands less than 2,200 square feet, 2)the protection of only three categories of habitat for fish and other wildlife, and 3)the stream and wetland buffers are not defensible as BAS. David Halinen, 10500 NE 8th St., Suite 1900,Bellevue,98004,expressed his opposition to the proposed changes to eliminate the Class 2 wetland exemption and to reduce the Class 3 wetland exemption. He indicated that conceptually, the smaller wetlands have a relatively de minimis effect on the environment, and the current exemptions were carefully considered and balanced with property rights issues. If the changes are made as recommended,Mr.Halinen suggested that at a minimum, a 1,000 foot exemption for Class 2 wetlands be allowed. March 21,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 95 Jim Bonwell, 9616 146th Ave. SE,Renton, 98055, stated that his property contains a Class 1 stream and salmon, and a wetland is located to the east of his property. He expressed concerns regarding the way property is developed,and described the effect a nearby horse farm has on a wetland located downstream from it. Mr. Bonwell pointed out that people must pay attention to how their property maintenance and development practices affect the water quality, habitat, and vegetation on his and other properties. In response to Councilman Clawson's inquiry regarding large woody debris, Andy Kindig, consultant with A.C. Kindig &Co., stated that the placement of woody debris usually has to do with a restoration project, which is not within the confines of the critical areas ordinance. Mr. Clawson indicated that characterizing the critical areas ordinance as an endangerment to children who swim is unreasonable. Councilman Persson stated that if someone is already in the process of obtaining a permit,the old rules still apply. City Attorney Larry Warren said that is generally true; however,depending on whether the development regulations or the environmental regulations are involved, an exception could be raised. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PALMER,COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. APPEAL Planning and Development Committee Chair Clawson presented a report Appeal: Sunset Bluff regarding the appeals filed by SR 900 LLC and Herons Forever on the Sunset Preliminary Plat, SR 900 LLC Bluff Preliminary Plat(PP-04-002). The Committee heard this appeal on &Herons Forever,PP-04-002 3/17/2005. After reviewing the record, the written presentations by both parties, and having heard oral argument, the Committee found that there were no substantial errors in fact or law and recommended that the full Council affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision with the following clarifications: 1. The Hearing Examiner at conclusion#9 on page 22 of his report and recommendation urged the City Council to deny the plat because it does not take advantage of the natural amenities of the site in a suitable fashion and does not do nearly enough to attempt to protect the nearby Heron colony from the proposed plat development impacts. However,the Hearing Examiner in his recommendation suggests that if the Council approves the plat,certain conditions should be applied. The plat should be approved according to the conditions set forth in the Hearing Examiner's report and recommendation as set forth in conditions 1-15 on pages 22 and 23. 2. There is some confusion about the fencing. Fencing is recommended in item 9 of the conditions to the Hearing Examiner's recommendation and again in item 12 of the Hearing Examiner's conditions. These two conditions can be satisfied by two fences, one separating the residences from the drainage pond, and a second fence at the toe of the slope at the property line between the subject property generally to the south. 3. Recommendation#4 on page 2 of the Hearing Examiner's report should be amended to read: "The applicant shall hydroseed any open space with native forbs, shrubs, wildflowers, trees, and shrubs. This will help reduce the temporal impact of the clearing, by planting materials that already have some size to them. March 21,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 96 This will also introduce trees back into the mix, which are necessary for adequate buffering. Trees in the mix should also help stabilize the steep, regraded slope. The plantings should be monitored for a minimum of five to ten years to ensure that they are established. Plants that do not survive should be replanted. The plant mix should contain a mix of both deciduous trees(for heron nest materials)and coniferous (for screening)." MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. ADMINISTRATIVE Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative REPORT report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2005 and beyond. Items noted included: * The public is invited to learn about Renton's publicly-funded entities during a State of the Community event beginning at 6:00 p.m. on March 29th, at the Renton IKEA Performing Arts Center. This free event will showcase the City of Renton,Renton Technical College, Renton School District, and Valley Medical Center. One representative from each entity will present plans for 2005 and beyond, explain their funding sources, detail a few challenges, and recount some accomplishments. * The Renton Community Resource Telephone Directory is now available in Cambodian, Chinese,English, Korean, Laotian, Punjabi, Russian, Somali, Spanish,Tagalog, and Vietnamese. AUDIENCE COMMENT Shirley Andrews, 9606 143rd Ave. SE,Renton, 98055; Thomas Foster, 6450 Citizen Comment: Various - Southcenter Blvd.,#106, Seattle, 98188; Jean Rollins,9605 143rd Ave. SE, R-1 Zone Community Renton,98059;Andrew Duffus,9605 143rd Ave. SE,Renton, 98059; and Separators Debra Rogers,5326 NE 22nd Ct.,Renton,98059;expressed appreciation for the City's work on the R-1 zone community separators, and urged Council to advance the subject ordinance to second and final reading this evening. Citizen Comment: Baker- Lenny Baker, 20224 81st Ave. W.,Edmonds, 98026, submitted a letter to the Gene Coulon Park Hydroplane Council and said he represents Seattle Drag&Ski Sprint Boat Association, a Race not-for profit organization, which will hold a limited hydroplane race at Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park on April 30th and May 1st. Mr. Baker indicated that there is lot of public interest in this event, and he described how Renton will economically benefit from the race. Mr. Baker also reviewed how the association organizes the event, and the measures that are taken to protect the racers and spectators,both in the water and on land. Citizen Comment: Krom- Suzanne Krom, President of Herons Forever, PO Box 16155, Seattle, 98116, Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat thanked Council for its decision on the Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat appeal. Appeal, SR 900 LLC& Herons Forever,PP-04-002 RECESS MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. CARRIED. Time: 9:14 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:21 p.m.;roll was called; all Councilmembers present except Corman,previously excused, and Clawson. Councilman Clawson arrived at 9:23 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. March 21,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 97 Council Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of March 14, 2005. Council concur. March 14, 2005 Appeal: Ridgeview Court City Clerk reported appeal of Hearing Examiner's recommendation on the Preliminary Plat, Cliff Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat(PP-04-131); appeal filed by Sean K. Howe, Williams,PP-04-131 524 2nd Ave., Suite 500, Seattle,98104,representing Cliff Williams of Ridgeview Court,LLC on 3/7/2005, accompanied by required fee. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Vacation: Walkway,NW 6th City Clerk submitted petition for vacation of portion of unimproved road St&Rainier Ave N,VAC-05- (walkway)between NW 6th St. and Rainier Ave. N.;petitioner Jack D. 002 Alhadeff,95 S.Tobin St.,#201,Renton,98055 (VAC-05-002). Refer to Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator; set public hearing on 4/18/2005 to consider the petition. (See page 99 for resolution setting public hearing.) Community Services: Henry Community Services Department recommended approval of an ordinance Moses Aquatic Center Fees setting new fees and increasing fees at the Henry Moses Aquatic Center. Council concur. (See page 100 for ordinance.) Community Services: Heather Community Services Department recommended approval of a contract in the Downs Park Development amount of$167,148 with J.A. Brennan Associates,PLLC for Heather Downs Architectural Services,JA Park development architectural design services. Council concur. Brennan Associates Lease: Eoscene, 200 Mill Community Services Department recommended approval of an amendment to Building(4th&6th Floors), the lease with Eoscene Corporation(LAG-02-003) for space of the 4th and 6th LAG-02-003 floor of the 200 Mill Building for additional space and a lease term extension through 6/30/2010. Refer to Finance Committee. Plat: Laurelhurst Phase 1, Development Services Division recommended approval,with conditions,of the Duvall Ave NE,FP-04-160 Laurelhurst Phase 1 Final Plat; 69 single-family lots on 15.7 acres located on the west side of Duvall Ave. NE at NE 2nd St. (FP-04-160). Council concur. (See page 99 for resolution.) Planning: 2004 Countywide Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Planning Policies Amendments recommended adoption of a resolution ratifying the 2004 amendments to the Growth Management Planning Council's Countywide Planning Policies. Council concur. (See page 99 for resolution.) Annexation: Maplewood Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Addition,Maple Valley Hwy submitted 60%Notice of Intent to annex petition for the proposed Maplewood Addition Annexation, and recommended a public hearing be set on 4/4/2005 to consider the petition and R-8 zoning; 60.5 acres bounded by Maple Valley • Hwy. and the Cedar River. Council concur. Plat: Barbee Mill,Lake Hearing Examiner recommended approval, with conditions, of the Barbee Mill Washington Blvd N,PP-02- Preliminary Plat; 115-lot subdivision on 23 acres intended for townhouse units 040 located at 4201 Lake Washington Blvd. N. (PP-02-040). Council concur. Solid Waste: Garbage Legal Division recommended approval of revisions to the garbage ordinance to Ordinance Revisions clarify and add definitions, to make garbage collection mandatory with certain limited exceptions,to add and clarify violations, and to criminalize violations. Refer to Utilities Committee. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PALMER,COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. March 21,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 98 CORRESPONDENCE City Attorney Warren advised that the following letters regarding the appeal of Citizen Comment: Chamberlin the Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat (PP-04-131) may contain information &Halinen-Ridgeview Court that is outside the record that was before the Hearing Examiner. The Preliminary Plat Appeal,Cliff correspondence may be referred; however, it may or may not be able to be Williams,PP-04-131 considered when it comes before the Planning and Development Committee and the full Council. Letters were entered from Kevin Chamberlin,Highlands Post Office Station Manager, 17200 116th Ave. SE,Renton, 98059,and from David L. Halinen, Halinen Law Offices,P.S., 10500 NE 8th St., Suite 1900, Bellevue, 98004. With the understanding that the Planning and Development Committee may or may not be able to consider them, it was MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL REFER THE TWO ITEMS OF CORRESPONDENCE TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Transportation (Aviation)Committee Chair Palmer presented a report Transportation(Aviation) recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve amending Committee City Code 9-10-11,Trench Restoration and Street Overlay Requirements and Development Services: Trench standard details. The amendments will establish guidelines for the restoration Restoration &Street Overlay of City streets disturbed by installation of utilities and other construction Requirements activities, and will apply to any public or private utilities, general contractors, or others permitted to work in the public rights-of-way. The Committee further recommended that the ordinance regarding this matter be presented for first reading. MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 100 for ordinance.) Transportation: SR-169 Transportation(Aviation)Committee Chair Palmer presented a report Corridor Improvements, recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve a resolution Supporting Legislative for the purpose of supporting the SR-169 Improvement Consortium's efforts to Funding obtain State legislative funding as part of the SR-169 Corridor improvements in the amount of$4 million to be completed as funding becomes available. The Committee further recommended that the resolution regarding this matter be presented for reading and adoption. MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 100 for resolution.) Streets: Sunset Blvd N,NE Transportation (Aviation) Committee Chair Palmer presented a report Sunset Blvd&Houser Way recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation for the temporary lane Tunnel Temporary Closures closures of Sunset Blvd. N. and NE Sunset Blvd. and the temporary full closure of the Houser Way Tunnel and Sunset Blvd. NE. The Committee further recommended that: • "Notice of Traffic Revision/Construction" signs be erected at key intersections at least two weeks prior to construction to give motorists advanced notice of potential delays and alternate routes. • Modify traffic signal timing to minimize traffic delays. • Work with the Renton Police Department to provide increased patrol car visibility surrounding the construction area and along its posted detour routes. March 21,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 99 • Inform the public of the closures and detour routes through mail flyers, community meetings and events, and local news media. • Coordinate closures with affected businesses such as PACCAR and the Renton School District. The Committee further recommended that the resolution regarding this matter be presented for reading and adoption.* Councilwoman Palmer stated that the closures are for infrastructure improvements for the Highlands area, and information about the closures is being dispersed throughout the community. *MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 100 for resolution.) Utilities Committee Utilities Committee Vice Chair Clawson presented a report regarding the Public Works: Cedar River broodstock collection facility. The Committee recommended concurrence in Broodstock Collection the recommendation to approve the I-405 site as the best location for a (Sockeye Hatchery)Facility, broodstock collection facility within Renton City limits provided that the Seattle Public Utilities Project following issues can be negotiated to the satisfaction of the City: • Seattle Public Utilities (SPU)provides adequate mitigation for impacts of construction and operation of the broodstock facility on City lands and activities, including,but not limited to, impacts on spawning behavior, parks use, aesthetics, surface water,recreation, public safety,riparian habitat,Parks Master Plan, and Narco Rd. maintenance. • Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife modifies the Hydraulic Project Approval for the dredging project to address potential impacts from the broodstock facility on the City's mitigation requirements. • SPU supports future maintenance dredging and provides monitoring for fish activity at and below the broodstock facility. Upon Council concurrence with this recommendation, staff will pursue negotiations with SPU regarding permitting and construction of the broodstock facility at the 1-405 site. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. RESOLUTIONS AND The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption: ORDINANCES Resolution#3742 A resolution was read setting a public hearing date on 4/18/2005 to vacate a Vacation: Walkway,.NW 6th ten-foot wide platted walkway approximately 187 feet in length,connecting St&Rainier Ave N,VAC-05- NW 6th St. to Rainier Ave. N. (Jack D. Alhadeff,JDA Group; VAC-05-002). 002 MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution#3743 A resolution was read approving the Laurelhurst Phase 1 Final Plat; Plat: Laurelhurst Phase 1, approximately 15.7 acres located in the vicinity of Duvall Ave. NE, west of NE Duvall Ave NE,FP-04-160 2nd St. (FP-04-160). MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution#3744 A resolution was read ratifying the 2004 amendments to the Growth Planning: 2004 Countywide Management Planning Council's Countywide Planning Policies. MOVED BY Planning Policies Amendments BRIERE, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. March 21,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 100 Resolution#3745 A resolution was read authorizing the temporary closure of the northbound Streets: Sunset Blvd N,NE lanes of Sunset Blvd. N. (N. 3rd St. to I-405), the Houser Way Tunnel, and the Sunset Blvd &Houser Way eastbound lanes of NE Sunset Blvd. (Sunset Blvd. NE to Harrington Ave. NE.); Tunnel Temporary Closures and temporary total closure of portions of Sunset Blvd. NE. MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution#3746 A resolution was read supporting legislative funding from the 2005 Washington Transportation: SR-169 State Legislature for certain road improvement projects on SR-169 to Corridor Improvements, significantly increase the level of service. MOVED BY PALMER, Supporting Legislative SECONDED BY PERSSON,COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS Funding READ. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for first reading and referred to the Council meeting of 4/4/2005 for second and final reading: Community Services: Henry An ordinance was read amending Chapter 5-1,Fee Schedule, of Title V Moses Aquatic Center Fees (Finance and Business Regulations)of City Code by setting Henry Moses Aquatic Center pass card rates and canopy rental fees. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 4/4/2005. CARRIED. Development Services: Trench An ordinance was read amending Section 9-10-11 of Chapter 10, Street Restoration &Street Overlay Excavations,of Title IX,Public Ways and Property,of City Code by revising Requirements trench restoration and street overlay requirements. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 4/4/2005. CARRIED. Planning: R-1 Zone An ordinance was read amending Chapter 4-2,Zoning Districts -Uses and Community Separators Standards, Chapter 4-3,Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts, Chapter 4-4,Citywide Property Development Standards, Chapter 4-6,Street and Utility Standards, and Chapter 4-11,Definitions, of Title IV(Development Regulations)of City Code to amend the R-1 residential low density zone in order to regulate clustered development and create an urban separator overlay designation.* Councilman Clawson acknowledged the requests to advance this ordinance for second and final reading; however, he noted that ordinances are not advanced unless there is a critical reason for doing so. *MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 4/4/2005. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS • Responding to Councilman Persson's inquiry regarding the necessity of Police: Criminal Trespass reviewing the City's criminal trespass ordinance since the Municipal Court Ordinance Judge found a portion unconstitutional, City Attorney Warren pointed out that City Code contains a reference in its criminal code to the State trespass ordinance. Therefore, Renton does have a current, valid and enforceable trespass ordinance. He relayed that the ordinance the Judge found to be illegal is contained in another part of City Code. School District: Activities Councilwoman Nelson reviewed the various announcement,events, and activities of the Renton School District,including: the qualification of three Renton High School speech and debate team members to compete at the r March 21,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 101 National Forensic League tournament in Philadelphia, the qualification of more than 300 students at Nelson Middle School for induction in the National Junior Honor Society, and the nomination of five Renton High School students for the 2005 Diversity Makes a Difference awards. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 9:46 p.m. 69.2c1 .u,J. Gf.k..1o""-I Bonnie I. Walton,CMC,City Clerk Recorder: Michele Neumann March 21, 2005 RENTON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING CALENDAR Office of the City Clerk COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS SCHEDULED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 21,2005 COMMITTEE/CHAIRMAN DATE/TIME AGENDA COUNCIL WORKSHOP MON., 3/28 Identifying Emerging Issues; 8:00 am-9:00 pm Review &Revise Six-Year Business Plan; &TUES., 3/29 Economic Development Issues; 8:00 am-3:00 pm Neighborhood Redevelopment Issues; Annexation Issues *Renton Technical College Technology Resource Center Room 111-C* COMMITI EE OF THE WHOLE MON., 3/28 CANCELLED (Briere) MON.,4/04 City of Renton Disaster 6:00 p.m. Preparedness/Response (briefing only) *Fire Station#12 1209 Kirkland Ave. NE* COMMUNITY SERVICES MON., 3/28 CANCELLED (Nelson) FINANCE MON., 3/28 CANCELLED (Persson) MON., 4/04 Vouchers; 4:30 p.m. Lodging Tax Funding for Renton Visitors Connection & Chambers Contract; Collection Services Agreement with AllianceOne Receivables Management PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT THURS., 3/31 Critical Areas Ordinance (Clawson) 11:30 a.m. PUBLIC SAFETY • MON.,4/04 CANCET.I.FD (Law) TRANSPORTATION (AVIATION) (Palmer) UTILITIES (Corman) NOTE: Committee of the Whole meetings are held in the Council Chambers. All other committee meetings are held in the Council Conference Room unless otherwise noted. CITY OF RENTON ® MAR 0 9 2005 Washington State Aviation Division ®® Department of Transportation 3704 172nd Street,Suite K2 RECEIVED P.O.Box 3367 CITY CLERKS OFFICE Douglas B. MacDonald Arlington,Washington 98223-3367 Secretary of Transportation 360-651-6300/1-800-552-0666 RECEIVED Fax: 1-80 -8 3-6 TTY: 1-800-8339 -6388 www.wsdot.wa.gcv March 4, 2005 MAR 0 8 206 Renton City Council RECEIVED Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler MAR 0 8 2005 City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way MAYORS OFFICE Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler: It is my pleasure to inform you that the City of Renton has been selected to receive the 2004 "Aviation Star of the Year"award by the Washington State Department of Transportation(WSDOT) Aviation. The city was chosen for its support and commitment to protecting the Renton Airport through its Airport Land Use Compatibility Program. The compatibility program is unique in the state and serves the interests of both the community and airport. We would especially like to thank the planning commission, city staff, and citizens for developing a program that will serve the community's long-term interest in aviation and economic development. It is this kind of commitment that helps to make our state such a leader in the aviation industry. I cannot think of a more deserving recipient and I congratulate you on your achievement. We would like to present this award during your regularly scheduled Council meeting on March 21, 2005,beginning at 7:30 pm at the City Council Chambers. Again thank you and please let us know if we need to make other arrangements for you to receive your award. 410 erely, re •ohn Sibold Director of Aviation WSDOT CC: 4 4100 Alibi � Washington State Transportation Building ) Department of Transportation 310 Maple Park Avenue S.E. Douglas B. MacDonald P.O.Box 47300 Secretary of Transportation Olympia,WA 98504-7300 360-705-7000 TTY: 1-800-833-6388 www.wsdot.wa.gov March 21, 2005 RECEIVED MAR 2 2 2005 The Honorable Kathy Keolker-Wheeler MAYOR'S OFFICE Mayor, City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mayor Keolker-Wheeler: I apologize that I am not able to attend your City Council Meeting this evening to personally present the"Aviation Star of the Year" award to the City of Renton. On behalf of the Washington State Department of Transportation, I would like to commend the City of Renton for its efforts to protect the Renton Municipal Airport for future generations. Aviation is a critical part of Washington's overall transportation system, which I believe is the backbone of our state's economy. For this reason, it is crucial that local jurisdictions protect our transportation assets. As population grows in the Puget Sound area, development pressures increase around airports - especially where open land and short-term economic gains exist. It takes vision and courage to protect these airports as essential public facilities. As an"Aviation Star of the Year" I applaud you for implementing a comprehensive plan that recognizes the value of the Renton Municipal Airport to the state and local economies. I would especially like to thank the planning commission, city staff, and citizens for developing a program that will serve the community's long-term interest in aviation and economic development. It is this kind of commitment that helps to make our state a leader in the aviation industry. I cannot think of a more deserving recipient and I congratulate you on your achievement. Sincerel , a i Douglas B.GcDonald Secretary of Transportation AM 7"A. Washington State Department of Transportation John Sibold Director of Aviation 360-651-6301 siboldj@wsdot.wa.gov Cell:360-708-7565 Toll-Free: 1-800-552-0666 Fax:360-651-6319 Aviation Division 3704 172nd Street NE,Suite K2 P.O.Box 3367 NB82-300 Arlington,WA 98223 Page 4 Renton Municipal Court 2004 Report—Renton Municipal Court Renton Mun:cpa1 Court Expenditures �.0NTp� The court was able to save $82,828 or 6.0% of its budgeted expenditures in 2004. Payroll and benefits were reduced mainly due to elimination of one judicial specialist position. Public Defender, Interpreter and Jury costs were low in response to the reduction in Driving While License Suspended (DWLS) cases. Extensive overtime was incurred by the 2004 Annual Report Probation Officer. Machinery and Equipment costs were related to the remodel of the City of Renton p Municipal Building probation office. 1055 South Grady Way INTRODUCTION Renton WA 98055 Renton Municipal Court is pleased to issue its 2004 Annual Report. Under Budget Over Budget Payroll/Benefits $71,320 Overtime 10,931 Phone:425-430-6550 This review of 2004 is the sixth year of this publication. The court is the Minor Equipment/Supplies 1 ,937 Machinery & Equip. 12,666 FAX:425-430-6544 third branch of city government serving the citizens of Renton. The Public Defender Costs 9,190 Publications 770 court strives to provide equal, fair and speedy justice to all that come Interpreters 3,356 before it. This report is intended to inform the community of the Jury Costs 5,132 activities and operation of the court in its endeavor to attain that end. Revenues Municipal Court Costs vs Budget FACILITIES Collections of fines, fees and forfeitures during $1,500,000 r___._ The court clerk's office, two courtrooms and two jury rooms are the calendar year decreased for the first time in 1 located in the Renton City Hall. They occupy approximately ten years. City retained revenue of $1 ,011,272 $1,000,000 , # 9,000 square feet on the third floor. In addition an in-custody was collected in 2004. The $122,500 revenue hearing room is located within the Renton City Jail, also at city $500,000 I 0 Costs hall. °" shortfall from budget was largely related to the a The court continues to share its space with other city e. DWLS ruling in the state Supreme Court and so II Budget departments if their need coincides with a period of courtroom : � low parking and traffic infraction revenue. 0) 0, o �� - vacancy. Unbudgeted passport fees contributed nearly cv T —0 01 N o 0 $48,000 on the positive side. a N FROM JUDGEJURADO Jail Hearing Ro. 2004 was a challenging year for the court. Due to several factors associated with decisions of the Washington Supreme Court, and the Washington Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee the court has suffered a substantial reduction in our ability to maintain revenue levels that we have experienced since my assumption of office. The court has made every attempt to minimize the unforeseen impact of these decisions. However, while continuing to operate under budget, we Case Load cannot report we have been able to make up the losses. The court will continue to judiciously During 2004 the number of cases filed in Renton Municipal Court decreased slightly from 2003. manage the resources of the City to the best of our ability. Traffic infraction filings were at the lowest level since 1995. Criminal filings were 30% below 2003. DUI filings rose 33.5% and parking violations filings were up 10.0% from 2003. It is anticipated The court was asked in 2004 to decide whether the Renton Criminal Trespass Ordinance was criminal filings will rebound in 2005 due to DWLS related legislation in the 2004 legislature. constitutional. After hearing all arguments and considering the law the court decided the ordinance was in conflict with the general laws of the State of Washington and therefore unconstitutional. As this ordinance was a powerful tool used by law enforcement I gave Renton Municipal Court 2004 Revenue Renton Municipal Court 2004 Case Filings considerable thought before I entered my decision. While members of our community and law 4,613 enforcement may have disagreed with the outcome, a judge must not allow outside influences to $90,244 dictate decisions. To do so would compromise some very fundamental principals of our 211 ®Traffic Infractions $459,567 265 — 655 ■Other Infractions government. Ultimately, I believe a new ordinance that is in compliance with the law will be 1,541 oDUlk'ng legislated and the City will be looked upon as a good place to live and the court a fair place to ;404,979 M Criminal III Criminal Traffic ■Miscellaneous 57 ®Criminal Non-Traffic arbitrate disputes. $56,710 o Infractions 6,134 IIProtection Orders 0 Parking Page 2 Renton Municipal Court Page 3 pp,radenw was COURT STAFF DRIVING WHILE LICENSE SUSPENDED (continued) • Hours of Operation: The Renton Municipal Court Judicial staff consists of one full time elected The common practice was to suspend a driver's license due to their failure to pay the Monday through Friday judge who is in court on a daily basis and appointed pro tern judges initial amount of the ticket or failure to pay the fine and/or comply with conditions set in a 8:00amto 5:00 pm serving approximately one day per week. Judge Terry Jurado, the current court hearing. The defendant was notified in writing by the Department of Licensing of the judge of the Renton Municipal Court, was elected to a four-year term in failure to pay or comply and given thirty days in which to correct the situation. If the •Jury trials held November of 2001. conditions of the ticket were not satisfied, at the end of the subsequent thirty day period Thursday&Friday the license was suspended. If the defendant operated a motor vehicle after this time he or •Jury hotline number During 2004 several significant changes were made to better match she was subject to arrest on the criminal charge of Driving While License Suspended (425)430-6545 personnel and their tasks to the workload of the entire court. One Judicial (DWLS). Specialist position was eliminated. This was made possible by a staff retirement and the reduction in Criminal Traffic case filings. A second The Supreme Court ruled that this procedure did not give the accused defendant a chance Judicial Specialist position was reclassified "Judicial Specialist/Trainer". for "due process". That is, to have a hearing at the Department of Licensing to present The regular rotation of duties between staff members is enhanced by the Trainer Position. A irregularities such as identity of the defendant or mistakes in information from the court. Probation Clerk position was added to assume probation clerical duties from Judicial Specialists and the Probation Officer. ` I / This ruling affected thousands of DWLS cases statewide. The Renton Police Department and Prosecutor's Office filed The support staff now consists of the Court Services Director, two Lead Judicial Specialists, a7 approximately one thousand of these cases annually in Judicial Specialist-Trainer, seven Judicial Specialists, a Probation Officer and a Probation Clerk. / Renton Municipal Court. Although most DWLS cases Joe McGuire, the Court Services Director, has filled the position since August of 1998. The • •POLICE navigate through the criminal justice system quite quickly, competent professional staff has an average of thirteen years court experience. the impact of this Supreme Court ruling on the court has been substantial. 2004 ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND ACTIVITIES The initial action in the court was to dismiss all the DWLS cases awaiting adjudication or CRIMINAL TRESPASS ORDINANCE RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL sentencing. Next those cases that had been issued warrants due to the defendant's failure to appear were dismissed. Cases that were adjudicated prior to the Supreme Court On October 11, 2004 the court issued an order finding a portion of the Renton Municipal ruling were not affected as a group. Code Criminal Trespass ordinance unconstitutional. The ruling came about as a result of several motions filed in the court complaining that defendant's due process rights were being Law enforcement can no longer arrest someone for driving with a license suspended for violated. After carefully considering the arguments and applying the law, the court found the an unpaid traffic ticket. The Department of Licensing can not withhold issuance of a ordinance in conflict with the Washington State Constitution. drivers license merely because a person has unpaid traffic tickets. Without these enforcement tools the incentive to pay traffic fines has been eliminated for some drivers. The short term affect of this decision required the dismissal of all pending cases cited under the ordinance and rewriting of the Consequently, the number of Criminal Traffic filings has decreased noticeably. trespass ordinance that complies with the Washington StatIffk e ` Elimination of a court staff position was weathered due to the reduction in caseload. Constitution. The long term benefits are the City will not come .r .�� Expenditures for Conflict Public Defense and Interpreters were well below budget. Overall under criticism for violation of the rights of citizens and the court revenue was down for the first time in ten years. These issues may be short lived Renton Municipal Court maintains credibility as a fair and ' due to action in the state legislature. impartial place to resolve disputes. it 1 There has been legislation introduced that will "fix"the underlying cause of these changes. DRIVING WHILE LICENSE SUSPENDED LAW It will give those cited for traffic infractions an opportunity for a hearing with the Department of Licensing if they believe an infraction was issued or adjudicated with an In June of 2004 the Washington State Supreme Court issued a ruling that impacted the identification error or a mistake in information passed from the court to the Department of Courts of Limited Jurisdiction significantly. The Court ruled many defendants whose drivers Licensing. The correction will go into effect in the fall, following passage of the legislation. licenses had been suspended by the Department of Licensing had been treated The consensus in the courts and law enforcement is that following such a correction, the unconstitutionally. changes felt in the criminal justice system and specifically Renton Municipal Court in 2004 will be reversed by the end of 2005. �Y O� CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING Renton Best Available Science Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master Program GMA Integration Proposal March 21, 2005 • The purpose of the City's proposal is to meet Growth Management Act (GMA), Shoreline Management Act (SMA), and City Comprehensive Plan goals for critical area protection, considering Renton's urban and environmental context. • What is Best Available Science (BAS)? GMA requires cities and counties to use information generated from a valid scientific process in developing policies and critical area regulations. BAS Sources may include research, monitoring, inventory, surveys, modeling, assessment, synthesis, and expert opinion. The City must also give special consideration to protection of anadromous fisheries. • Schedule. GMA requires the City to demonstrate compliance with BAS provisions in City %ow policies and regulations. The original timeline was completion by December 2004. Adoption is projected in April 2005 at this time, including adjustments that the City Council may make. Following this public hearing, the package will go back to the City Council Planning and Development Committee for their recommendation to the full City Council in April. • Proposed Amendments would: * Refine City Comprehensive Plan policies especially the Environment Element. * Amend the Renton Critical Areas Regulations to classify streams/rivers/lakes and apply buffers. Proposed stream/lake buffers would increase from 25 feet to 35 to 100 feet depending on stream class. Buffers may be reduced with enhancement. * Modify exemptions, review criteria, and similar sections to improve or better document the wetland review process. * Make minor amendments to aquifer, flood hazard, geologic hazard, and habitat conservation regulations, as well as general review procedures, e.g. modify review criteria, address volcanic hazards, etc. * Propose limited Shoreline Master Program amendments to integrate Shoreline and fir. Comprehensive Plan policies, address text and map inconsistencies along the Black River and Cedar River, and provide for shoreline buffers similar to Critical Areas Regulations,while responding to use priorities of the SMA. Council Hearing Handout 03-21-05_short_l.doc\ r 4' City of Renton: Critical Areas and - Outline Shoreline Master Program Update p • What is the purpose of the proposal? ' • What does State law require? • What are the components of the proposal? City Council • Staff recommendations �� Public Hearing:3/21/05 • Schedule ill Pill f,ri?!`-'; , , 3 What is the purpose of the Purpose and Context > proposal? µ • Meet: - Growth Management Act(GMA), - Shoreline Management Act(SMA),and f - City Comprehensive Plan 3s goals for critical area protection,considering ' '. Renton's urban and environmental context. Context ' c' Context (2) • Founded along the Cedar and Black Rivers 1 : • Land in City Ownership: and Lake Washington a - - Citywide,City owns approx. 1450 acres of land 1`.. - City's Downtown and key industries along major containing 248 acres of wetlands and much of it ' shorelines i lying along streams/lakes ' - Much of City has been altered by past activities 'x:- - In Green River Valley alone,City owns approx.340 �: • City protection of critical areas is multifaceted: 4 acres with approx.208 acres of wetlands City ownership,regional collaboration,capital - Potential Annexation Area,City owns approx.27 �,.. programming,as well as critical area �Z acres of land with 5 acres of wetlands regulations 1 „..... ... ..... ,,,,,;.„„,..:,,...„.. 01', .•t :. Y.- . a *VP t ,j41,4,- ,4.,...), t -�.r - x:r4•.1 ;'',61T.,-,,-'.."-.;:.•.. . -44;4444.47:41: . , , . . . ,. 'N4kt j,,, 1;4 �': f Pte' t” 1 8 s _ f s,. .,.'41 M , .a s .i-; iii'.LtS s .. Renbn Owned Panels ,_ 1 Million owned--Vol*Pt, 4 .w Context (3) Current City Regulations • Regional planning forums:Renton participates • City Critical Area Regulations in WRIA 8 and 9 efforts as well as GMPC - Response to Local Community and GMA,1980s&1990s •Shorerne Master Program • City Capital Improvement Program 2005 to •Greenbelt Ordinance 2010,includes: •FEMA Flood Hazard Regulations -Wetland mit.bank plan&construction$1.5 million •Wetlands Regulations. •Aquifer Protection Regulations - Springbrook Creek improvements including fish •Tree CuthngrLand Clearing l passage:$1.3 million - 25 foot stream setback - Green River Ecosystem Restoration:$70,000 - Consolidated Critical Areas Ordinance in 1999 - May Creek Basin Plan Implementation:$275,000 , - •Streams-Reserved i 6-w •a. y, .'rete. r o- :37, • '' What steps have been completed? wnr.:,ur.),am.w..... ,acw' aw•r•r•ytw•raMOWN Atear•rrns a „ • Inventory,analysis,draft regs-Nov 2003 to present "'""":::—`--...r"---` ,7" -^+-•- •••"-•*•°-^•R- •• • Early Agency Review-Mar 2004 »r.a.w........•. «....«. .. ..«..._.... t i • Public Review Draft-July 2004 ma••»•""•••`••••" • Open Houses-July/August ""•�`» •�" wmanr,...0«mm na•.,..a»,..a.auar...sn - General Public Open House&Builder's Open House Summer 2004 .,.,......«..,..•••.....«m,,......«... • { • SEPA Review-July/August 2004 d' •° ^•• -_ ^• a i SEPA Appeal Sept 2004;HEX upheld City determination Dec 2004 ••`••':m•:>••'• '.' • Revised Public Review Draft-Jan 05 ^•°•�^••° +"^•^ »••-^^`^ •• • Planning Commission „.,, M; "• "' "" - Meetings February/March 2005,prior briefings in 2003 and 2004 ""'`�'a:` ' t:z,` - Hearing March 2,2005 �": "•••••'.....-"*`-"— „„„,,,„ ., •• City Council:Planning and Development Committee briefings +�'« - .» 2 ',.*'..-- 4,,,4-- What does State law require? State Requirements , Growth Management Act(GMA)defines critical areas and requires their protection: ,.� a) wetlands; b) areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used " for potable water; Z- i" " . c) fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; raWL d) frequently flooded areas;and e) geologically hazardous areas. ". f (Some issues overlap) a.- (RCW 36 70A.030) What does State law require?(2) t What does State law require? (3) a (� 4' • Growth Management Act ( a • Criteria to demonstrate how BAS has been included in - Use best available science(BAS)in policies 8 regs. plans and regulations: f %: •BAS use inbnnation generated from a varxt scientific process that involves peer review.redicable methods,logical mxlusms/reasonade - The policies and regulations adopted to protect critical areas; Inferences,qualitative analysts,information placed In context,and -,--•: - Sources of BAS included in the process; provision of references. - Non-scientific information,e.g.legal,social,cultural,economic, t s •.BAS Sources may nckxte research mon to ing, rrenrory,surveys, r and political,used to depart from BAS.If used,the jurisdiction: modefnp, essmem,synthesis,and expert opkuar. •Identifies the non-scientific information in the record; * - Special Considideration-protection Of anadromous fisheries. •Explains the rationale for departing from science-based • Shoreline Management Act recommendations; - Shoreline Master Program part of Comprehensive Plan "'�` •Identifies potential risks to the functions and values of the cnlical - Equivalent protection for Shorelines of the State s area or areas at Issue and any additional measures to limit nsks. •Cedar River,May Creek,Springbrook Creek,Black River,Lake Washington i.i- h ,,,„ , . . :-,---. ...„ .:.....!. ..:,- p ti.,-. x What are the components of the _'' proposal? Components of Proposal " R - i Best Available Science 4 Regulation Amendments Review - Streams/Lakes : - Streams - Wetlands -- $ - Wetlands - Other - Other critical areas L �, - 2 Policy Amendments Proposal consists of 126/05 draft with supplemental - Shoreline Master Program recommendations Policy Amendments - Supplemental changes Other Comprehensive Plan s t 1,-,r-':?: made In responses to Elements comments as of 3/16/05 3 Shoreline Map Amendments completion of Planning , Commission Review .d^.L.."-? mss, U ,•- 3 }: BAS Review Policy Amendments • GMA/SMA Based: • Best Available Science Literature Reviews ', - SMP policies moved to Land Use&Environment Elements -r - Streams - Shoreline topics added- - Wetlands •Historic/Cultural/Scientific/Educational •Flood Damage Prevention �{ • Example Code Comparison � - Restructuring of shoreline use priority pdides - Aquifer Recharge • GMA/General Critical Areas: •-•' - Flood Hazards Environment Element focus Geologic Hazards •ESA Task Force •Rivers&stream policies and flood plain policies - Procedures - Other Elements:Transportation,Utilities,&Economic § . - Development i ,. f=tom;. 7 Map Recommendation Summary Shoreline Master Program Map � r Black `°"`"° k River-North Bank Nantral(m p and tat) Natural,eat a-Monter Road•• allow for habitat enhancement, Rood coonl, pow/Wale poly hinted public saxes. It • Address SMP Map and Text conflicts on Black Wet ofMooter Road,Urban River Black River-South Bank Netunl Pap) cCons t y.eaof Mousier d Urban(bat) • Address unclassified areas on Cedar River Was of Monster Road,lhnan • Clarify interpretation of aquatic environments Cedar River along Golf Course Not cleated in Re.SMP. Conservancy and Roo Reps Park-North King Coady applies Bank Comeramey '4,^ Cedar River along Golf Course Not classed in Ramo Stiff C°oarvaocy omeod use and Ron Regis Park-South K Co appal! aWwaocw for e4ive rtcreatioo 0.11 Cedar River y _ y ` r t N y �.-- Vii' ;4 C.: \ �y e... t;.;s.. x i 4 ; ...."`-1/4- 4 i nN a " r�^" 4' Q ,a., ..,. - f g t . ori t 0 o C. °t w _t 4 :,..,..:itti---,,,,,•- ' „. . Regulation Amendments— i -•.,.- t, Streams/Lakes - : Water Types Mapping • Regulations • Principles .. ..., • Class 1 Shorelines of the • Class 3-Year round,non- .• •., - Stream Classification - No-net-loss of stream ; ' State salmonid bearing(e.g.-... Kennydale Creek,Rolling - Stream Buffers function . - Lake Washington .„.... Hills Creek,etc.) - Stream Mitigation - Inner and Outer Buffers - May Creek ___,./.....i.- • Class 4-Intermittent,- Cedar River non- Standards •Standard Un-enhanced lr' salmonid bearing(e.g. •Reduced Enhanced - Black River portions of Maplewood Creek -. Standard and Flexible - Springbrook Creek and Gypsy Creek) Review Processes . • Class 2-Salmonid Bearing • Class 5-Artificial,non- Stream„ (e.g.portions of salmonid beanng,where no , . Honey Creek,Maplewood natural channel existed Creek,Panther Creek,etc.) before . -... . 6.-.. . --11, • -- f 11,,....7_sets,iPtse, *sod Ilegule,t1::,•1:::•1,12plittediAtiviti,iiiikkattle:, But!t,.•11Mittin,,,,n. '••••Alk1.4'1.1'1 .-‘.140 i•'‘' 7' -.., ,4 j ' -- .e's• \-1-7_. ------4,,.a,- , •! • -,,----- - N ._ ..;it ,.>. ' • , - -, i• rti ;.. - _,.. ri:r , 4,4,,,,b 1444444.44.4, 1.14144 k•I'f.t...•....., -p,'.-t,.. ..a T.' p p ............144p 4 M*.........t. .....* '''- .Ittik' i'..•'-' '13;.'"/it. 'I I -1 t i P.p...J.... 1 . _ -r.ci 466'i:4•B 4•4., ...,‘0 i., -........4......1. .124...t....4.. .f.,.-.:d .. .m.1.,-' ,----t---- •••,.....,....., _l_-__.. 1,-V•7•••,..a._ - ....P. .r___________,, c..............L......* ,,.........“,.....,,,, ......„,...,.. ..----- " -24'-'.SV-t-- •4'..',., Na ±,(v-,2 -. 11,...,....;.---.3.-.7 --.1--- WATER CLASSES ,-.-. .*:4..--. rr----------------7 '-{_.. 4-::.] i--— ---- egr--- DRAFT ,..a-t• — Mom hsoFsal Inailadoss titActhallim Is willionlesStess I WWI , ' • ' -, , ,......,....„...., ....;••••••••• 'llo 55 Williams—Cedar River(Class 1) 5.:....S...1•11•• ) .- .' • Std.buffer 100 feet .... - "--'"--..I - Would eliminate much of i the building at present . 1=E="1111= MENII=SIIMIl ' . , height&configuration 1 IIMRTAMME - = •: • Reduced buffer ....-- ... , •:,- : standards are possible --. -,A,;..•;,,,, to 50 feet for multifamily .. 4......... ... in Urban Center .- - Demonstrate no-net-loss fi* ...."...r.... . 004/144144 144.4444 4 4.4.01•44 ........* - - Other improvement(City E- - : ", '- ' . - trail)intervenes ... . .... 5 Bristol at Southport— Lake Wash. �. (Class 1) -,` Honey Creek Estates II (Class 2) • Std.buffer 100 feet i • Most of 100'buffer falls in • . - Would eliminate some of the - r s> ., steep slope area where building at present height and development is unlikely & configuration t • If developed with proposed - • • Reduced buffer possible to 50regs.could lose a lot.Could „ tx C' feet for water enjoyment uses --• 1 • make up the lot if zone allows _� Demonstrate no-net-loss = clustering. x - Except for at a comer,the , • Additional impervious surface '-f-'` ' 50-It setback would be met 4- t °i would not be able to be y - Existingdeveloped �t -� areas can 4•,t added in the buffer area ,, retain impervious surfaces ' r z- • Demonstrate no-net-loss of � ,: - Averaged buffers/setbacks a shoreline ecological function _ - atiiiii oedkhea possible also be a ______L__ to reduce or average buffer .. factor to reduce buffer. _`; SE 128th Street, near Post Office r (Class 4) j'' Wetlands Approach , ',' • b er -rgey a Is within - t • Retain current wetland class system abutting wetland area i l • Retain standard buffers,but require that all proposals • Where there is no abutting review whether criteria are met for increased buffers wetland,the stream buffer - would be 10 ft wider than r • Modify some exemptions to reduce potential for current 25-ft std. 't- f I cumulative impacts,e.g.road/utility expansions,small e. � •• Little effect on the commercial `"' r plat/site plan wetlands -i • No-net-loss of shoreline I >t 4 ecological function would *c:tj. need to be demonstrated '_ .. w Wetlands—Additional Analysis (1) Wetlands—Additional Analysis (2) • A survey of 17 representative wetlands in r • Parametrix conclusions,the result of: i y Renton performed by Parametrix (1)the City's wetland classification system, -Assessed the characteristics of wetlands present in (2)buffer designations based on that classif.system, the city;and .. (3)process to determine when wider than std.buffers Compared City's and DOE's differing methods of are required to protect functions and values,and classifying wetlands and establishing buffers to e• T5 (4)other code req'ts for storm water quality and protect existing functions and value. t. quantity controls, will protect functions and values of wetlands that '• ' exist within the City. [s mak.' 6 f. Other Critical Areas Comments • Make minor amendments to: • Comments received over time from: aquifer, - Agencies:State Departments of Ecology,Fish and flood hazard, Wildlife,and Community/Trade/Econ.Dev. r geologic hazard, - Interest Groups:Seattle Audubon Society,Master - habitat conservation r e9 ulations,and Builders - general review procedures, - Property Owners: • For example, modify review criteria,address volcanic •Barbee MU and Baxter property attorneys hazards,etc. •Richard Gumpert,property owner •Greg Fawcett,properly owner •Stoneway property attorney •Jerry Brennan,property owner Responses and Supplemental Recommendations Next Steps ; • Existing development and streams/lakes: - impervious eudaro can roman 3 -^ umlaut aim.buffer reduction or averaging for aide edeveiopment - eirpb fam•y cam rebuild'as is.where is'(suggest code cross ref.) • New development and streamsnakes:flexibility with administrative buffer averaging and reductions • Criteria for Class 7 water buffer reduction:Clarify use priorities { • Wetland exemption:keep proposal to balance BAS/wettand protection& code administration • Wetland buffers:Retain proposed approach but add. g ,, - soon Creek Policy - Reference DOE Option 3 when considering buffer increases • Wildlife Habitat:Focus on State listed&wetland dependent species " • Other housekeeping/clarification changes Next Steps • After public hearing,comments considered by Council's Planning and Development Committee • • Planning and Development Committee meetings)and recommendation,early April • City Council Action,April 7 -a/aoo�' &.uJ.re,; fila Mizele From: Citizens to Council Via Clerk dOj�e'pteeQ ate," To: John Mauro, LCC Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2005 3:43 PM Subject: Re: Comments on Renton CAO update Dear Mr. Mauro: Thank you for your e-mail to the Renton City Council. Copy will be presented to Council and made a part of the Public Hearing record tonight. If I can provide further information or assistance, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6502 >>>"John Mauro, LCC"<john@livablecoalition.org> 3/21/2005 2:24:53 PM >>> Dear Councilmembers: Attached are comments regarding your critical areas ordinance update. I regret that I am unable to attend tonight's hearing, but that I am interested in the process and any other opportunities for public involvement. Please contact me with any questions you might have. Sincerely, John Mauro John Mauro Director Livable Communities Coalition 1617 Boylston Ave. Suite 201 Seattle,WA 98122 Phone: 206.343.3074/Fax: 206.709.8218 <mailto:iohn at livablecoalition.org>johnlivablecoalition.org <http://www.livablecoalition.orq>www.livablecoalition.orq A . . March 21, 2005 LIVABLE Renton City Council COMMUNITIES City of Renton COALITION Renton City Council 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 1617 Boylston Avenue,Suite 201 Seattle,WA 98122 council�u<ci.rcnton.'.va.us 206.3433074 206.709.8218(fax) RE: Critical Areas Ordinance Update Recommendations, info(alivablecoalition.org RMC 4-3, Renton Municipal Code www.livablecoalition.org Protecting, Dear Renton City Councilmembers: Restoring Livable Communities Coalition is a broad-based coalition of and neighborhood, affordable housing, transportation, land-use, and Maintaining environmental advocates in the King County region. We advocate Healthy, for and promote healthy, equitable, and sustainable communities, believing in protection of and access to clean water and air, open Equitable space, forests, farmlands and wildlife habitat for all citizens. LCC and is a coalition of 25 other organizations with individual members in the City of Renton. Sustainable Communities The Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) should be designed to protect In King property, water quality, and human safety(from flooding and erosion), while including flexibilities to ensure responsible County development and that taxpayers save money in the long run from allowing natural systems, as often as possible, to do work in place BOARD of DIRECTORS of costly mechanical systems. Janice Cannon Kyte Thank you for the opportunity to submit our following recommendations; we hope they are of assistance. Please include Allen Cox them in the official record. Also, please register us as a party of record and keep us informed of future opportunities for public John Healy involvement and any decision points. Jennifer Joseph In order to better protect public health, safety and general welfare, Paul Kampmeier we would like to add the following five major suggestions for improving RMC 4-3: Matt Mega Aaron Ostrom Gina Stark Paul Wiesner Renton City Council Critical Areas Ordinance Update Comments March 21, 2005 Page 2 of 9 1. STRENGTHEN WETLAND PROTECTION ■ Isolated and smaller wetlands need protection. Renton's draft CAO (Section M (1), line 2272)proposes an exemption for smaller Category III wetlands. Smaller and even isolated wetlands provide important habitat functions, however, and filling wetlands as an exemption will result in a net loss of functions and values and, therefore, runs counter to case lawl'2 and to the Growth Management Act (GMA)3. Furthermore, wetlands smaller than 2,200 square feet provide functions and values—and Renton has a state mandate to protect those functions and values regardless of if they are equivalent to or connected to larger systems. Best available science counters some assumptions that may underlie the draft language: (emphasis added): As with exempting a certain wetland size, there is no scientific basis for exempting wetland impacts under any particular size without an analysis of the cumulative effects of the exemption. A study of the management area is needed in order to measure the net result of the exemption as applied over time.4 There is absolutely no scientific justification for exempting isolated wetlands from regulation(Volume 1, Chapter 5). Isolated wetlands are generally defined as those wetlands that are hydrologically isolated from other aquatic features. Hydrologic isolation is not a determinant factor in the function of wetlands. Isolated wetlands in Washington perform many of the same important functions as other wetlands, including recharging streams and aquifers, storing flood waters, filtering pollutants from water, and providing habitat for a host of plants and animals. Many wildlife species, including amphibians and waterfowl, are particularly dependent on isolated wetlands for breeding and foraging.5 • Wetland buffers widths are inadequate to protect wetland functions and values. Pilchuck Audubon Soc'y v. Snohomish Cty[Pilchuck II],CPSGMHB Case No. 95-3-0047c,Final Decision and Order P. *21, 1995 WL 903206, *21 (December 6, 1995). 2 Tribes v. Snohomish County[Tulalip],CPSGMHB Case No.96-3-0029,FDO,January 8, 1997,13. 3 RCW 36.70A 4 Washington State Department of Ecology. August 2004 Draft.Wetlands in Washington State Volume 2: Managing and Protecting Wetlands. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication#04-06-024. Section 8.3.3.2. 5 Ibid. Section 8.3.3.3. 2 • Renton City Council Critical Areas Ordinance Update Comments March 21, 2005 Page 3 of 9 A state report from August 2004 notes that despite the wetland regulatory programs in place, the data show that impacts continue and that we have not achieved the federal and state goal of"no net loss."6 Buffers in Renton's draft ordinance should be increased to adequate distances given in the scientific literature. As required by the Washington State Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), Best Available Science (BAS) must be incorporated into the update of all Critical Areas Ordinances; proposed wetland buffer numbers cast some doubt into the rigor of the City of Renton's BAS report. We encourage a further investigation of the Washington State Office of Community Development list of BAS citations. We also suggest that criteria from State of Washington Department of Community Trade and Economic Development's (CTED's) Example Code Provisions for Designating and Protecting Critical Areas8 be incorporated. If a deviation from BAS is desired, a full documentation of reasons should be provided. Major discrepancies in state recommendations and RMC are noted in the following tables: Department of Ecology Wetland Buffer Recommendations Intensity Wetlands Category of Use Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 High 300 feet 200 feet 100 feet i 50 feet Moderate 250 feet 1 150 feet 75 feet 35 feet Low 200 feet 100 feet 150 feet 135 feet City of Renton Proposed Wetland Buffers Wetlands Category Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 fStandard Buffer 1100 feet 50 feet 25 feet The City of Renton uses buffer distances that are significantly smaller than those recommended by the state. This is a particular concern for us, since this deviates substantially from the best available science. The best available science supports Category 1 buffers in a range from 200 to 300 feet, depending on land use intensity; the City of Renton uses a distance less than half of that supported by 6 Ibid. Section 3.1. 7 Washington State Office of Community Development. March 2002. Citations of Recommended Sources of Best Available Science For Designating and Protecting Critical Areas http:/iwww.cted.wa.goviuploadsrBAS Citations Final.pdf 8 State of Washington Department of Community Trade and Economic Development. 2003.Critical Areas Assistance Handbook: Protecting Critical Areas Within the Framework of the Washington Growth Management Act. Appendix A:Example Code Provisions for Designating and Protecting Critical Areas. http:!iwww.cted.wa.gov'uploads/Appendix A.pdf. 3 Renton City Council Critical Areas Ordinance Update Comments March 21, 2005 Page 4 of 9 BAS for high intensity land uses. For Category 2 buffers, BAS supports between 100 to 200 feet, while the City's proposed buffers are clearly not in this range. The City's Category 3 buffers are set at 50 feet; 50 feet is generally understood as the baseline buffer distance for wetlands. Since the City is proposing a 3-tier system(and, again, we recommend a 4-tier classification system), we suggest using 50 feet for Category 4 wetlands and increasing protection for Category 3 wetlands to at least 75 feet. The City must provide evidence in the record as to the reasons for deviating from the best available science and actions taken to address potential risks to critical area functions and values (WAC 365-195-915). Relying on previously established standards is unacceptable. A standard scientifically-governed baseline buffer distance is necessary to ensure no net loss. We recommend increases in buffer distances to comply with state recommendations and best available science. Furthermore, we recommend substantial revisions of the buffer averaging and reduction section to ensure no net loss of functions and values. • The critical areas ordinance should incorporate a 4 tier classification system We strongly suggest that you update the City of Renton's 3 class system to a 4 class system. Aside from more updated information, if you adopt the 2004 Rating System, the development community will be less encumbered by having to rate wetlands twice—once for state standards and once for city standards—and, instead, merely need to rate them once. We support this more streamlined process and the protection it affords. • Mitigation replacement ratios should follow BAS. Mitigation success rates, as documented by scientific studies and state BAS documents, are often very low. Likewise, mitigation has "not been successful for various reasons and [has] resulted in lost acreage, wetland types, and wetland functions (Castelle et al., 1992b; Ecology, 2001; Mockler et al., 1998)." While restoration has an important role to play, especially in important but heavily impacted environments, studies of mitigation show that enhancement is not working. As the authors of Washington State Wetland Mitigation Evaluation Study-Phase 2, Evaluating Success, conclude: • Only 22 percent of enhanced wetlands were achieving all measures, while 44 percent of enhanced wetlands were not achieving any measures. • Only 11 percent of enhanced wetlands adequately compensated for the impact, while 78 percent of enhanced wetlands did not compensate. 4 Renton City Council Critical Areas Ordinance Update Comments March 21, 2005 Page 5of9 Enhancement projects did a poor job compensating for the impacts to wetlands, primarily because enhancement activities provided a low contribution to wetland functions. • Over 50 percent of the enhancement sites provided minimal or no contribution to overall wetland functions. • 75 percent of enhancement sites provided minimal or no contribution to the general habitat function. The results of this study are troubling, since the vast majority of enhancement activities focus on improving habitat by adding vegetative structure and species diversity. If the majority of enhancement areas are not even providing a moderate contribution to wildlife habitat, then enhancement projects are resulting in a net loss of wetland acreage and functions.9 Washington State Department of Ecology's Wetlands in Washington State Volume 2:,Managing and Protecting Wetlands (Publication# 04-06-024)10 provides a solid synthesis of current BAS for western Washington wetlands and mitigation replacement ratios. We suggest incorporating the ratios in this document and not allowing reductions since this poses a threat to wetland functions and values. 2. STRENGTHEN STREAM AND RIPARIAN AREA PROTECTION • Stream buffers are too narrow to protect the functions and values of riparian areas. RMC 4-3 requires buffers of as low as 35 feet (not including potential averaging), while the best available science supports buffers between 150 and 250 feet. The City of Renton's stream buffers are significantly less than those supported by the state and best available science. 9 Johnson,Patricia and Dana L. Mock,Andy McMillan,Lauren Driscoll,&Tom Hruby. Feb 2002. Washington State Wetland Mitigation Evaluation Study-Phase 2, Evaluating Success p. 84(Washington State Department of Ecology,Shorelands&Environmental Assistance Program, Lacey, WA, Publication No. 02-06-009). This report has been identified as best available science by Washington State Office of Community Development's Citations of Best Available Science for Designating and Protecting Critical Areas pp. 8 -9(March 2002). 10 See Table 9 on page 15 of Appendix 8-C: Washington State Depaitment of Ecology.August 2004. Wetlands in Washington State Volume 2:Managing and Protecting Wetlands. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication#04-06-024. Available at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/bas wetlands/vol2/Appendix%208- C%20external%20review%20draft.pdf. 5 Renton City Council Critical Areas Ordinance Update Comments March 21, 2005 Page 6 of 9 Not only do stream buffers perform necessary habitat functions, but they help protect human drinking water, aid in flood protection, and help account for special consideration for anadromous fisheries, as required in the 1995 GMA amendments. A 35-foot buffer provides negligible functions, according to the best available science, and will not provide for the state mandate (and CAO regulation) of"no net loss" to stream functions. Buffers larger than those provided are required—greater than 100 feet in most -1 cases—are necessary for reasonable sediment control,II nutrient removal, 1 ,13,1 pathogen removal, and wildlife habitat,17•18,19,20,21,22 among other valued functions. Recent findings on floodplain management, as well, illustrate the importance of protecting human safety and property with adequate buffers: It is the latter reason, viz.,habitat protection, that has spurred countless Washington communities to define buffers, usually through the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas section of local CAOs. These buffers often encompass areas larger than identified floodways; on smaller streams,they normally are wider than the floodway. This provision is perhaps the most effective floodplain management practice in the State at this time.23 'I Sheldon,D.,T.Hruby,P.Johnson,K.Harper,A.McMillan,S. Stanley,and E. Stockdale. Freshwater Wetlands in Washington State,Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication#03-06-016. 12 McMillan,A.2000. The Science of Wetland Buffers and Its Implication for the Management of Wetlands. M.S.Thesis.Olympia,WA:The Evergreen State College. 13 Castelle and Johnson. 2000.Riparian Vegetation Effectiveness.National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.Technical Bulletin#799. 14 Belt,G.H. and J.O'Laughlin. 1994.Buffer strip design for protecting water quality and fish habitat. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 9(2): 41-45. 15 McMillan,A.2000. 16 Sheldon,et al.2003. 17 Castelle,A.J.,C. Conolly,M. Emers,E.D.Metz, S. Meyer,M. Witter, S. Mauermann, M. Bentley,D. Sheldon,and D.Dole. 1992. Wetland Mitigation Replacement Ratios:Defining Equivalency. Publication No.92-08.Olympia,WA:Washington Department of Ecology. Is Chase,V.,L.Deming,and F. Latawiec. 1995.Buffers for Wetlands and Surface Waters:A Guidebook for New Hampshire Municipalities. Concord,NH: Audubon Society of New Hampshire. 19 Fischer,R.A.,C.O.Martin,and J.C.Fischenich. 2000. Improving riparian buffer strips and corridors for water quality and wildlife.In P.J.Wigington and R.L.Beschta,Riparian Ecology and Management in Multi-Land Use Watersheds. American Water Resources Association. 20 Groffman,P.M.,A.J. Gold,T.P. Husband,R.C. Simmons,and W.R.Eddleman. 1991.An Investigation into Multiple Uses of Vegetated Buffer Strips. NarrangansettBay Project No.NBP-91-63.Providence,RI. 21 Howard,R.J. and J.A.Allen. 1989.Streamside Habitats in Southern Forested Wetlands:Their Role and Implications for Management.U.S. Forest Service. 22 McMillan. 2000. 23 Washington State Department of Ecology.February 2004.Floodplain Management in the State of Washington A Status Report as of Februamy 2004. Page 10. 6 Renton City Council • Critical Areas Ordinance Update Comments March 21, 2005 Page 7 of 9 We encourage you to take the best available science into account and make serious increases to riparian buffers. ■ Stream typing should be done in accordance to the Washington State Department of Natural Resources new lettering system. Instead of using stream typing that is specific to Renton, we suggest that you use the WDNR lettering system. This will allow for a more accurate and reasonable designation of stream types and, subsequently, better protection of stream functions and values. While an adaptive management approach allows for possible changes, integrating this new lettering system—as other jurisdictions are doing—would streamline the process, allow for easier use by the development community, and result in better and more updated protections. 3. IMPROVE FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS PROTECTION ■ Other fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, aside from those assigned, should be protected. RMC 4-3 defines "critical habitat" areas for protection as one of the following: i. The documented presence of non-salmonids ii. The presence of heron rookeries or raptor nesting areas; and/or iii. Category 1 wetlands We encourage the City to protect feeding,breeding, and nesting grounds for species of local importance and other non-endangered and non-threatened species. We also suggest incorporating protections to Priority Habitats, Areas Associated with Priority Species, Areas of Rare Plant Species and High Quality Ecosystems, State Natural Area Preserves, Natural Resource Conservation Areas, and Land Useful or Essential for Preserving Connections Between Habitat Blocks and Open Spaces—all recommended by the state. 4. ADDRESS ADDITIONAL CONCERNS ■ We suggest substantive penalties for violations. We feel strongly that the penalty should fit the violation and discourage noncompliance. Given major impacts to critical areas around the Puget Sound region, other jurisdictions have increased fines to $3000 per violation per day(see the City of Edmonds, for example). We suggest a similar increase to assure the 7 Renton City Council . , Critical Areas Ordinance Update Comments • March 21, 2005 Page 8 of 9 protection of critical areas—and the health and human safety of the citizens—of Renton. 5. CONSIDER THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE Consistent with this principle, conservation planning should be conservative in the sense of being more willing to err on the side of protecting too much rather than protecting too little. It is more efficient and cost-effective to prevent environmental damage than to repair it later24, and a"low risk" strategy, based upon the best available science, will provide the best chance for protecting critical areas. This basic principle of conservation biology is known as the "precautionary principle."25 WAC 365-195-920 supports this approach and advises that where cities lack scientific information, they should take a precautionary or"no risk"approach in which development and land use activities are strictly limited until the uncertainty is sufficiently resolved. WAC 365-195-920 also advises local governments to employ an effective adaptive management program that relies on scientific methods to evaluate how well regulatory and non-regulatory actions will achieve their objectives, and can make timely programmatic changes in response to that feedback. The guidelines further advise that the feedback loop from management results should operate quickly enough to be able to detect deficiencies in the program and correct them before the resource is placed at risk. A "low risk" conservation planning strategy for critical areas should embody two principles that will ensure effective protection: 1) Prevent new impacts ("do no harm" and"no net loss") 2) Employ the "precautionary principle", i.e. the greater the uncertainty, the more conservative a habitat conservation plan should be. Incorporating the precautionary principle (WAC 365-195-920) will enable the City of Renton to effectively protect critical areas now and into the future to ensure no net loss of critical area function and value and protect the livability and quality of life for all Renton residents. Thank you for your commitment to the protection of Renton's critical areas and the health and general welfare of our members and all citizens;we hope you use this opportunity to incorporate our comments and set a superior example for other municipalities in the region. 24 Weiss,Edith Brown,Ed. 1992. Environmental change and international law:New challenges and dimensions.United Nations University Press,The United Nations University.493 pages. 25 Noss,Reed F.et al. 1997.The Science of Conservation Planning: Habitat Conservation under the Endangered Species Act. Island Press 8 , . Renton City Council Critical Areas Ordinance Update Comments March 21, 2005 Page 9 of 9 We thank you for the opportunity to submit our comments. Feel free to contact us with any questions. Sincerely, John Mauro Director cc: Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager, rlind@ci.renton.wa.us 9 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT _ COMMITTEE REPORT 17 C`�` "�`'�� March 21, 2005 Date 3-A/- 6°4/ SUNSET BLUFF PRELIMINARY PLAT APPEAL File LUA-04-002, PP, ECF (Referred 1/24/05) The Planning and Development Committee heard this appeal on March 17, 2005. After reviewing the record, the written presentations by both parties, and having heard oral argument, the Committee finds that there were no substantial errors in fact or law and recommends that the full Council affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision with the following clarifications: 1. The Hearing Examiner at conclusion#9 on page 22 of his report and recommendation urged the City Council to deny the plat because it does not take advantage of the natural amenities of the site in a suitable fashion and does not do nearly enough to attempt to protect the nearby Heron colony from the proposed plats development impacts. However, the Examiner in his recommendation suggests that if the Council approves the plat, certain conditions should be applied. The plat should be approved according to the conditions set forth in the Examiner's report and recommendation as set forth in conditions 1-15 on pages 22 and 23. 2. There is some confusion about the fencing. Fencing is recommended in item 9 of the conditions to the Examiner's recommendation and again in item 12 of the Examiner's conditions. These two conditions can be satisfied by two fences, one separating the residences from the drainage pond, and a second fence at the toe of the slope at the property line between the subject property generally to the South. 3. Recommendation#4 on page 2 of the Examiner's report should be amended to read: "The applicant shall hydroseed any open space with native forbs, shrubs, wildflowers, trees and shrubs. This will help reduce the temporal impact of the clearing, by • planting materials that already have some size to them. This will also introduce trees back into the mix, which are necessary for adequate buffering. Trees in the mix should also help stabilize the steep, regraded slope. The plantings should be monitored for a minimum of 5 to 10 years to ensure that they are established. Plants that do not survive should be replanted. The plant mix should contain a mix of both deciduous trees (for heron nest materials) and coniferous (for screening)." Dan Clawson,Chair &2414;t7 Denis Law,Vice Chair ()76.4,&1214411 Marcie Palmer, Member Cc: nnecer Tenni n3 Alei 1 Wafts Larry W arre.v1 CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: March 21, 2005 TO: Terri Briere, Council President Members of the Renton City Council FROM: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer SUBJECT: Administrative Report In addition to our day-to-day activities, the following items are worthy of note for this week: GENERAL INFORMATION • At the Highlands Community Association meeting on Thursday,March 24th,representatives from the Planning/Building/Public Works and Police Departments will be discussing the City's Code Compliance Program. The meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. at the Renton Housing Authority Administration Building, 2900 NE 10t Street. ADMINISTRATIVE/JUDICIAL/LEGAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT • The public is invited to learn about Renton's publicly-funded entities during a State of the Community event beginning at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday,March 29th, at the Renton IKEA Performing Arts Center. This free event will showcase the City of Renton,Renton Technical College,Renton School District,and Valley Medical Center. One representative from each entity will present plans for 2005 and beyond,explain their funding sources,detail a few challenges, and recount some accomplishments. • Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler delivered her State of the City's Economy address during a Renton Chamber of Commerce luncheon at the end of February. The Mayor's speech is available on the City's website, www.ci.renton.wa.us,and will also be featured at various times throughout the next several weeks on Cable Channel 21. For a schedule,contact the City Clerks Office at 425-430-6510. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT • Youth 11 to 15 years of age can participate in the Flashlight Egg Hunt at Liberty Park on Friday, March 25th, at 8:00 p.m. Bring a flashlight and a sack to carry home all your goodies because the park will be stocked with loads of candy and prizes. Kids 6 years of age and under, accompanied by a parent or guardian,can participate in the Hip Hoppin' Egg Hunt at the Renton Community Center on Saturday, March 26th,from 10:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. A Spring Carnival will follow and a$6 Carnival Pass can be purchased for all activities including crafts,games, and inflatables. For more details about either of these events,call 425-430-6700. • The Special Olympics Winter Sports Awards Banquet last week was sponsored in part by the Soroptimist International of Renton Beth Donofrio Memorial Fund. More than 50 Special Olympic athletes, as well as family and friends participating in the Specialized Recreation Program,gathered to celebrate the end of the 2005 Basketball season. Beth Donofrio,who passed away in 2004,had a passion for working with Special Olympic athletes, and the memorial fund will support this banquet each year. Administrative Report March 21,2005 Page 2 • The Renton Resource telephone directory is now available in Cambodian, Chinese,English, Korean, Laotian,Punjabi,Russian, Somali, Spanish,Tagalog, and Vietnamese. Linking residents to existing sources through the directory can be the first step towards self-sufficiency and independence. The directories can be downloaded from the City's website, www.ci.renton.wa.us, or call 425-430-6650 to request copies in the various languages. PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT • A Draft Watershed Habitat Plan was released on March 10th and comments will be accepted through April 25th. Everyone is invited to participate in a public meeting and open house at Renton City Hall, 1055 S. Grady Way,on Tuesday,March 22nd,to provide input to the Draft Plan. An open house will start at 6:00 p.m. and the public meeting will take place from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. For more information,call 206-296- 1909. at/at/Iva &171 & / ij/ o02 Dear Terri, Council President, Council Members, We are writing to you regarding the annual Renton Cup Regatta held at Gene Coulon Memorial Park in your city. This is the sixth year for the Limited Hydroplane race. The race dates are April 30th and May 1st 2005. Each year our club, Seattle Drag & Ski Sprint Boat Assoc. seeks to improve the quality of the event. This year will be no exception, with two fun afternoon racing venues. There is no charge to the public for our race. Community Services Recreation Division Manager Jerry Rerecich has advised us of a possible charge back to us for the Fire Truck and its services provided. I wanted to explain and discuss with you the fact that nowhere else in our 12 race season do we even use the fire department help at our events. Some of the cities we race in do use our race as a training exercise or an event to have the fireman's picnic and bring their families to enjoy the racing day, and in fact donate their fire departments ambulance but we are not asking for that. We have several rules that our Insurance Co. mandates for our APBA racing. 1. Each boat is equipped with a fire extinguisher at the boat. 2. Our club SD&S has at least six large 25 to 30 lb fire extinguishers space throughout the pit area and at the fuel dumps. 3. In addition we have four more located on the race course for back up if needed. 4. We have absorbent pads for clean up and absorbent material for control use. You can see that we don't need the expense or the extra equipment at the park. One of the things that some of our race sites do, is issue the peiunit and then send officers over to check and see that the conditions are all in place and ready to go. This is always a prerequisite to starting the event and they will throughout the two days of racing stop by to make sure all their conditions are met. We will still have an ambulance in place and will still notify Renton 911 of a problem, as we always have. In addition we have the Mercer Island Marine Patrol (two boats) and the Coast Guard Auxiliary (two boats) in place again this year as in the past. We, Seattle Drag& Ski Sprint Boat Assoc, are a not for profit State registered organization, and help various types of marine events, from high school swim meets, Seafair events, and the Lake Union fireworks show, all at no cost except expenses. Our members pay a modest fee ($15.00) to join, and we run our amateur races around the Northwest. We would ask that you reconsider the Fire Truck charge; we don't need them in place, as noted above, and would request that this requirement be waived. Thanks for your attention to this matter. Yours Truly, Commodore Seattle Drag & Ski Sprint Boat Assoc. 2005 RENTON RACE Estimated Budget APBA Sanction and Insurance Costs $3417.00 Inboard Promotions Fee $1900.00 Double Points Race Premium Mercer Island Marine Patrol $2000.00 Ambulance $1100.00 Crane and Fuel S 840.00 Seattle Rescue and Patrol $ 600.00 Trophies $ 600.00 Seattle Drag and Ski $ 545.00 (Includes Truck Ins, Gas, Additional Rope, Radio Batteries, Flares if needed And services rendered( setup/teardown, PA System, Announcer)) Staring Line Barge and Transport S 300.00 Toilets S 225.00 Region 10 Fees S 165.00 Total Expenses S 11692.00 Total Entry Fees 38 Boats @ $100.00 ea S 3800.00 Deficit Of The Race $ 7892.00 These expenses are based on last years budget and some minor increases in services purchased from necessary companies IE : Mercer Island Marine Patrol, American Medical Response , APBA (This excludes prize money) Seattle Drag & Ski Sprint Boat Association Inc. Commodore ?,ennv Baker 425-879-8166 cell 206-36a-1095xt7356 wk 425-776-184711m • CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: V ' L) . Submitting Data: For Agenda of: 3/21/2005 Dept/Div/Board.. AJLS/City Clerk Staff Contact Bonnie Walton, x6502 Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Appeal of Hearing Examiner's recommendation dated Correspondence.. 1/25/2005 regarding the Ridgeview Court Preliminary Ordinance Plat(File No. LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF) Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business A. City Clerk's letter(3/11/2005) Study Sessions B. Appeal— Cliff Williams/Ridgeview Court LLC Information (3/7/2005) C. Requests for Reconsideration (2/8/2005) &Hearing Examiner's Response (2/22/2005) D. Hearing Examiner's Report&Recommendation (1/25/2005) Recommended Action: Approvals: Legal Dept Refer to Planning and Development Committee Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: N/A Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation on the Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat was filed on March 7, 2005 by Sean K. Howe, Attorney, representative for Ridgeview Court, L.L.C., accompanied by the required $75 fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council Action on the Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat and appeal. cc: Jennifer Henning Larry Warren CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Bonnie I.Walton Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor March 11, 2005 APPEAL FILED BY: Cliff Williams/Ridgeview Court, L.L.C., represented by Sean K. Howe, Attorney RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's recommendation dated 1/25/2005 regarding subdivision of a 2.4 acre site located at 327 Bremerton Avenue NE into 20 single-family lots, known as the Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat. (File No. LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF) To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing examiner's recommendation on the Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat application has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110F,within five days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters limited to support of their positions regarding the appeal within ten (10) days of the date of mailing of the notification of the filing of the appeal. The deadline for submission of additional letters is March 21, 2005. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee. The Council Liaison will notify all parties of record of the date and time of the Planning and Development Committee meeting. If you are not listed in local telephone directories and wish to attend the meeting, please call the Council Liaison at 425-430-6501 for information. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Copy of the appeal and the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations are attached. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. For additional information or assistance, please feel free to call me at 425-430-6502. • Sincerely, 9X.4A &a Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Attachments 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055-(425)430-6510/FAX(425)430-6516 RENTON �� AHEAD OF THE CURVE �.�� This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer City of Renton Municipal Code; Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110—Appeals 4-8-110C4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of fir, the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110F: Appeals to City Council—Procedures 1. Time for Appeal: Unless a specific section or State law providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or any other body, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Council,upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. 2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 4. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982) 5. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner,for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. In the absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional . evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony,it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25-1993) 6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F1, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 8. Council Action: If,upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record,the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified,the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 9. Decision Documentation: In any event,the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord 3658,9-13-1982) 10. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision '*it✓ of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive,unless appealed within the time frames established under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997) CITY OF RENTON MAR 7 2005 APPEAL- HEARING EXAMINER RECEIVED CITY CLERKS OFFICE WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL. FILE NO. LUA 04-131,PP, SA-H, ECF APPLICATION NAME: Ridgeview Court The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated January 25, 2005. 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: REPRESENTATIVE(IF ANY) Name: Cliff Williams/Ridgeview Court, LLC Name: Sean K. Howe Address: PO Box 2401 Address: 524 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Kirkland, WA 98033 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone No.(206) 933-1049 Telephone No. (206) 587-0700 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach addition sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: FINDING OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's report) No. Error: Please see attached document. Correction: Please see attached document.' Igtome CONCLUSIONS: No. Error: Please see attached document. Correction: Please see attached document. OTHER: No. Error: Please see attached document. Correction: Please see attached document. 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (attach explanation, if desired) SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other: March 7, 2005 Appellant/Representative Signature Date i4orrocc. Ct1-y i4 , Nei i �v'C {-� iT e i 5vc5 Exwin) ;00288943.00c;1} �} v [-xa144f ORIGINAL %toe 1 2 3 4 5 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL 6 FOR RENTON, WASHINGTON 7 8 In re: No. 9 Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat, File No. WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING 10 LUA04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF EXAMINER'S DECISION, RECOMMENDATION, AND DENIAL OF 11 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION 12 Ridgeview court, LLC, applicant for approval of a preliminary plat,and site plan for 13 Ridgeview Court, File#LUA 04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF, appeals the actions of the Hearing N46. 14 Examiner denying this project. Specifically, the applicant appeals the Hearing Examiner's 15 recommendation to deny the preliminary plat,his decision to deny the site plan, and his 16 imposition of alternative conditions, all dated January 25, 2005 (hereinafter"Decision"); and the 17 Examiner's rejection of the applicant's request for reconsideration, dated February 22, 2005 18 (hereinafter"Response"); which two documents together will be referred to as"the denial." 19 I. SUMMARY 20 Ridgeview Court is a proposal to place 20 units of residential housing onto 2.4 acres,just 21 south of NE 4th Street. It is a thoughtfully planned and fully mitigated project, supported by City 22 staff, supportive of the goals of the Growth Management Act with its high density and proximity 23 to a major transportation corridor, and located where the City Council, as expressed by its 24 adopted development regulations, intended projects of its type to be. 25 26 Napo WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S Cairncross &Hempelmann, P.S. DECISION,RECOMMENDATION, AND DENIAL Law Offices OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION- 1 524 Second Avenue,Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98104-2323 ORIGINAL Phone:206-587-0700•Fax:206-587-2308 „r,, The Hearing Examiner's denial is based upon a single concern: the impact of noise upon 2 the project by an adjacent post office. The denial is a substantial error of both law and fact. 3 Both of the authorities proffered for legal support of the denial are erroneous. First, the denial 4 incorrectly relies on a comprehensive plan policy to override valid and specific development 5 regulations. Those development regulations, in the form of zoning and an overlay, specify a 6 transition between intensive commercial uses along NE 4th Street, and existing single-family 7 residential areas to the north and south. The development regulations authorize residential use in 8 the transition area. Despite these applicable development regulations, and despite Ridgeview 9 Court's meeting all applicable requirements,the Examiner has decided that no residential use is 10 appropriate for this property. Instead, as is made clear in the Response, he uses his"discretion” 11 to deny residential use. This is the second error of law, as the zoning use table does not provide 12 him such discretion in this instance. The denial is an error of fact. Noise from the post office 13 was properly considered during the SEPA procdss. That factual analysis, and the ensuing DNS- err' 14 M and its conditions,were not appealed. They were not overcome by the oral testimony of the 15 post office manager. Also, there was no showing that the several aspects of Ridgeview Court 16 that mitigate against incoming noise (including site layout,unusually large setbacks, fencing, 17 elevation differential, and landscaping) are insufficient. Finally, the effect of this denial, if left 18 unremedied, will be to push commercial uses and their impacts closer to existing low-density 19 single-family residences to the north and south of NE 4th Street. 20 II. ACTION REQUESTED 21 The applicant respectfully requests that the City Council: 22 1)Reverse the Decision by approving the site plan and preliminary plat; or 23 2)Modify the Decision by approving the preliminary plat and the alternative decision on 24 the site plan,with removal of alternative conditions 2, 3, and 4. 25 26 WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S Cairncross &Hempelmann, P.S. DECISION, RECOMMENDATION, AND DENIAL Law Offices OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION- 2 524 Second Avenue,Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98104-2323 Phone:206-587-0700•Fax:206-587-2308 {00289695.DOC;1} 1 III. FACTS 2 The applicant proposes to build 20 residential units on 2.4 acres,near a transportation 3 arterial (NE 4th Street), at 327 Bremerton Avenue. The lot sizes will range from 2,725 square feet 4 to 5,800 square feet. The property is less than one block from NE 4th Street. 5 Ridgeview Court's application vested to the standards of CS (Center Suburban)zoning, 6 which allows residential development. RMC 4-2-10, 4-2-60, 4-2-070J, 4-2-070K. The sole 7 conditions listed in the use table for the CS zone are density limitations and a zoning overlay. 8 RMC 4-2-80. The project meets or exceeds these requirements. 9 The applicable zoning overlay is Area B of Renton's Suburban and Neighborhood 10 Centers Residential Demonstration District. The overlay's intent is to "ensure high quality 11 residential developments within the Center Suburban and Center Neighborhood Zoning 12 Districts"and "to require superior residential projects which complement commercial uses, 13 provide first floor commercial activity along arterials, and provide a transition between intensive 14 commercial areas and surrounding single family neighborhoods."RMC 4-3-095 (A) (emphasis 15 added). The overlay specifically contemplates the proximity of"intensive"commercial uses to 16 the residences in this district. It specifically allows residential development and detached 17 dwellings. RMC 4-3-095 (C). This project meets or exceeds all requirements of the overlay. 18 After thorough review, city staff recommended approval of the project, subject to 19 conditions which the applicant is willing to and able to meet. Environmental review was 20 conducted, and staff issued a DNS-M (Determination of Non-Significance—Mitigated), 21 including conditions. There are no critical areas on the site. The Hearing Examiner found that 22 the site will"blend with the commercial, mixed use and transition well into the residential uses 23 to the south."Decision at pg. 3. There were no letters filed in opposition. The manager of the 24 neighboring post office testified that the use would be a great improvement for the 25 neighborhood. Decision at 3-4. In sum,Ridgeview Court is remarkable only in its 26 unremarkableness. Now WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S Cairncross &Hempelmann, P.S. DECISION,RECOMMENDATION, AND DENIAL Law Offices OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION- 3 524 Second Avenue,Suite 500 • Seattle, Washington 98104-2323 Phone:206-587-0700•Fax:206-587-2308 (00289695.DOC;1) *, Nevertheless, at the public hearing, the post office manager expressed concern about the 2 effect of noise that late-night and early-morning activities from his facility might have upon 3 future homeowners. Yet the issue of noise from the post office had already been discussed in the 4 SEPA process, and the post office manager had not appealed the DNS-M or its conditions. 5 Based solely upon the post office manager's statements, the Hearing Examiner deemed 6 the site"inappropriate" for residential use,denied the site plan, and recommended denial of the 7 plat application. The Decision recommended finding a"better use"for the site"such as another 8 commercial use." 9 In his Response to the applicant's request for reconsideration, the Hearing Examiner 10 declined to modify his decision. 11 IV. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS 12 The Hearing Examiner's denial of Ridgeview Court is a substantial error of both fact and 13 law. The denial is an.eiror of law, as it uses a single Comprehensive Plan Policy, taken out of ' ''' 14 context, to override specific implementing development regulations, deciding instead that 15 residential use is inappropriate for this property. Its second argument,that the Examiner has 16 "discretion"to deny residential use on this parcel, is also legal error, as the zoning use table does 17 not provide such discretion for this use in this zone,but instead permits residential use outright, 18 subject to a single condition which is met by this application. The denial is also an error of fact, 19 in that it finds last-minute oral testimony to outweigh the considered earlier SEPA analysis and 20 recommendation of staff. The denial of all residential use will serve only to push the impacts of 21 such transition toward the existing single-family residences to the south. 22 1. The Decision Errs by Using a Comprehensive Plan Policy to Override Specific 23 Development Regulations. 24 The only specific authority cited by the Decision to deny Ridgeview Court is 25 Comprehensive Plan Policy(CPP)H-90, requiring identification of"sites within mixed-use 26 areas, which are appropriate for residential developments." The Decision finds that this site is New WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S Cairncross &Hempelmann, P.S. DECISION, RECOMMENDATION, AND DENIAL Law Offices OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION-4 524 Second Avenue,Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98104-2323 Phone:206-587-0700•Fax 206-587-2308 (00289695.DOC;1) 1 not appropriate for residential use. The Response, while expressing the Examiner's 2 philosophical views on zoning,provides no additional legal authority, other than the Examiner's 3 "discretion"to protect the public interest. Both are mistaken. 4 The City Council, asrequired by the Growth Management Act, implemented the goals 5 and policies of the Comprehensive Plan by adopting the CS zoning, and the zoning district 6 overlay. See RCW 36.70A.040(3). The plain text of those development regulations, and their 7 expressed intent,prove that the City Council has already weighed precisely the type of concerns 8 cited by the Hearing Examiner. The Council decided that the CN and CS zones would be 9 transition areas between commercial and residential uses, and the overlay would further govern 10 those areas between "intensive"commercial uses and residential areas. The Council decided that 11 residential use would be permitted in this zone. 12 The Council's adopted development regulations, and this project, support numerous other 13 Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, that are equally applicable, and arguably more specific '460 14 to this property as the one used by the Examiner to deny the project. Ridgeview Court's small 15 lots provide affordable housing, in a central and urbanized location rather than at the 16 suburban/rural fringe, will be built a stone's throw from a major transportation and economic 17 corridor,put a blackberry-ridden lot to productive use, and do not threaten critical areas. As 18 such,Ridgeview Court supports the goals and policies of the Land Use, Housing, Transportation, 19 Environmental, and Economic Development elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 20 The Response criticizes the applicant's citation to the applicable development 21 regulations, mistakenly characterizing the applicable zoning map and overlay as"a bit more 22 global than a site-specific rezone." Pg. 1. An examination of the zoning map, and the 23 Residential Bonus District B overlay, show that these development regulations were certainly 24 drawn deliberately and with specificity. The applicable transition zoning extends south from NE 25 4th Street only to NE 3`d Street, and north only to NE 5th Street,before meeting purely residential 26 zoning. In most places,the CS/CN zoning is only one or two parcels deep in its separation of the WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S Cairncross &Hempelmann, P.S. DECISION, RECOMMENDATION,AND DENIAL Law Offices OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION- 5 524 Second Avenue,Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98104-2323 Phone:206-587-0700•Fax:206-587-2308 {00289695.DOC;I} 1 NE 4th Street corridor from the residential zoning to the south. This zoning is highly specific. 2 The applicable overlay is similarly narrow. 3 2. The Zoning Use Table Does Not Provide the Examiner Discretion In This 4 Instance. S The other argument proffered to deny this project is also incorrect. The denial, and in 6 particular the Response, rely upon the Examiner's "discretion"in protecting the"public interest." An examination of the City's zoning use table (RMC 4-2-060)shows that such reliance is plain 8 legal error. Under the use table, some uses are permitted outright ("P"); some are permitted if a 9 certain condition is met("P#"); and some indeed"may be permitted subject to review by the 10 Hearing Examiner to establish conditions to protect public health, safety and welfare." RMC 4- 11 2-050(A). These are demarcated by an"H." For this particular use(residential detached 12 dwellings), in this particular zone, (Center Suburban), the table does not state"H,"but rather 13' "P20": permitted outright if the application satisfies condition number 20(density limitations). 14 Ridgeview Court satisfies this condition. Thus, the Hearing Examiner's "discretion"to protect Ifirare15 the public interest may not be used to deny this particular use in this particular zone, and reliance 16 upon such discretion is legal error. 1 3. In Case of Inconsistency, Development Regulations Control. 18 The zoning regulations and overlay which govern this property, and that contemplate 19 residential uses, are not inconsistent with CPP H-90. However, even if the zoning and overlay 20 were somehow inconsistent with CPP H-90, the law in such cases is that, in the event of 21 inconsistency, comprehensive plan policies do not control individual private project applications, 22 development regulations do. Citizens of Mount Vernon v. City of Mount Vernon, 133 Wn.2d 23 861, 947 P.2d 1209 (1997). Citizens is the post-GMA reiteration of the rule that, in case of an 24 inconsistency, development regulations take precedence over plan policies. "A specific zoning 25 ordinance will prevail over an inconsistent comprehensive plan." Citizens at 873 (citing Cougar 26 Mountain Associates v. King County, 111 Wn.2d 742, 757, 765 P.2d 264 (1988)). The Citizens �rrr WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S Cairncross &Hempelmann, P.S. DECISION,RECOMMENDATION, AND DENIAL Law Offices OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION- 6 524 Second Avenue,Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98104-2323 Phone:206-587-0700•Fax 206-587-2308 {00289695.DOC;1} �„„► 1 court held that, for a rezone, the development regulations trumped the plan policies despite the 2 regulations' ambiguity, and despite issues regarding the timing of their enactment. 3 The situation here is far simpler than in Citizens. There is no inconsistency and there is 4 no rezone. The development regulations are unambiguous. There is no issue regarding the 5 sequence or validity of the applicable regulations. If the development regulations prevailed over 6 the plan policies in Citizens, they must certainly do so in this case. The Response is silent on 7 this crucial point. 8 The CS zone, to which standards this project is vested, allows residential detached 9 dwellings. Further, the overlay states that this area is designed to serve as the transition between 10 commercial and residential uses. In fact, the overlay's intent is not merely to buffer residential 11 areas from any commercial use, or average commercial use, but rather to serve as a transition 12 between"intensive commercial uses and surrounding neighborhoods."(Emphasis added.) A 13 post office with occasional late-night and regular 6:30-7:30 am truck activity is just the sort of 141''"' 14 use for which this zoning, and this particular overlay, were designed. In fact, given other 15 possible uses and impacts along this corridor, one could argue that it does not even qualify as 16 "intensive." Such sounds may not be consistent with the Examiner's nostalgic ideals of the 17 amount of sound that can be heard through an open window on a summer night in a low-density 18 residential neighborhood. However,this project is completely in keeping with the intent of the 19 GMA, Comprehensive Plan, and development regulations: centrally-located housing, in the 20 urban growth area, at a density and location supportive of transit and affordability, rather than 21 perpetuating the low-density, land-consuming development stereotypes that have contributed to 22 suburban sprawl. 23 In sum, the City Council has already determined that residential uses are appropriate in 24 this area, even when adjacent to "intensive"commercial uses. The denial's citation to a single 25 Comprehensive Plan Policy, and broad notions of discretion, to overrule a cohesive set of 26 specific development regulations are errors of law. Niao. WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S Cairncross &Hempelmann, P.S. DECISION,RECOMMENDATION, AND DENIAL Law Offices OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION- 7 524 Second Avenue,Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98104-2323 Phone:206-587-0700•Fax:206-587-2308 (00289695.DOC;1) • '' / 4. By Precluding Residential Uses, the Decision Effectively Rezones the Property to 2 a Purely Commercial Zone Rather than the Zone the Council Intended and Adopted. 3 In deeming all residential use inappropriate for this property, despite the project's well- 4 planned nature and its location in a designated commercial/residential transition area, the 5 Hearing Examiner effectively removes the residential use from the applicable development 6 regulations and use tables. The removal is in direct opposition to the intent and authority of the Council, the intent and text of the development regulations, and is error. The denial cites the 8 Examiner's "discretion"and notions of"benevolent paternalism,"yet the effect of such is to 9 substitute the Hearing Examiner's discretion for that of the Council. Yet this is exactly the 10 discretion that the Council exercised in enacting the applicable zoning and the applicable 11 overlay. 12 If this denial's logic is allowed to stand and applied to other residential projects in 13 transition zones, then the same result would be reached: denying residential use in zones that Nori '" 14 permit that use, and mandating that the impacts of commercial use move closer to existing single 15 family neighborhoods. 16 5. Those Conditions in the Alternative Recommendation and Decision that Are 17 Prompted by the Erroneous Denial of the Plat Are Also Erroneous. 18 For the same reasons as stated above, Conditions 2, 3, and 4 in the Alternative 19 Recommendation and Decision are also legally unsupportable, as they are grounded in the same 20 incorrect use of a general policy to overcome specific development regulations that are not 21 inconsistent with that policy. 22 6. The Denial is Substantial Error of Fact. 23 The Examiner's claim that residential development on this property is"inappropriate"— 24 despite the zoning and overlay to the contrary—is based solely on the post office manager's 25 statement about the noise his facility generates, and more specifically about the potential that the 26 manager may have to respond to noise complaints. See Paragraph 9 of the Decision's WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S Cairncross & Hempelmann, P.S. DECISION, RECOMMENDATION, AND DENIAL Law Offices OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION- 8 524 Second Avenue,Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98104-2323 Phone:206-587-0700•Fax:206-587-2308 {00289695.DOC;1} 1 Conclusions. Such a concern is not adequate to deny this otherwise valid project, as there was 2 no showing that Ridgeview Court's site layout, its greater-than-usual setbacks along its western 3 boundary, its fencing, its landscaping, and other design aspects would be insufficient. 4 For example, even the Decision finds that "Anacortes Avenue NE will act as a buffer 5 between the proposed single-family homes along the western property line and the existing 6 commercial use (Post Office site) on the abutting property."Pg. 3. Even the Decision finds that 7 "The site is also approximately eight feet higher"than the adjoining post office property. Pg. 5. 8 Even the Decision finds that"Staff has granted a modification that allows a setback for Proposed 9 Lots 8 to 13 to have a greater setback..." Pg. 6. All of these findings, and the SEPA analysis, are 10 thrown out based solely on the post office manager's testimony at public hearing. 11 The denial commits factual error when it overcomes considered SEPA analysis with the 12 statement of the post office manager. Incoming noise is a topic specifically addressed by 13 paragraph 7b of the City's SEPA checklist and was part of this application's environmental *a"' 14 review. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued the DNS-M, including conditions, 15 provided public notice, and allowed time for appeal. If someone felt such environmental review 16 —which specifically addressed the issue of noise from the post office—or the conditions imposed 17 thereby were inadequate, they should have appealed the DNS-M, as allowed by the law. 18 The Response is dismissive of the SEPA process, and incorrectly claims that the ERC's 19 authority is limited to the determination of a project's impacts and whether an EIS must be 20 prepared. Pg. 2. This ignores the conditions which the SEPA process generated,which were 21 appealable to the Hearing Examiner, and which are noted in the Decision at Page 2. 22 The Response implies that it is never too late to raise any environmental issue. If that 23 were so,then there would be no use for the SEPA process, as all environmental issues could 24 simply wait until the public hearing on the plat application. Moreover, the point of an earlier 25 SEPA analysis is not merely the orderly sequence by which issues of different types should be 26 examined. The additional point is that a factual examination had already been completed—as WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S Cairncross &Hempelmann, P.S. DECISION, RECOMMENDATION, AND DENIAL Law Offices OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION- 9 524 Second Avenue,Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98104-2323 Phone:206-587-0700•Fax:206-587-2308 {00289695.DOC;1} 4.4.,. 1 noted at other points throughout the Decision—which was not overcome by the post office 2 manager's last-minute oral concerns. 3 Finally, the Response is an error of fact when it incorrectly makes no distinction between 4 the dense, small-lot residential housing this Project proposes, and the existing single-family 5 residences farther to the south. It is an error of fact when it uses the Examiner's notions of what 6 residential noises should be present at night, to deny a project which meets all local requirements 7 and furthers the goals of the GMA and the City's Comprehensive Plan. 8 7. The Denial Will Have Adverse Consequences Beyond this Application. 9 The Hearing Examiner finds that,because of the noise from the post office, that a"better 10 use" for this property would be"another commercial use." Decision at 9. Acceptance of this 11 finding, and applying its rationale to similar cases, will result in converting CS and CN zones— 12 which the Council designated as urban transition zones—to purely commercial zones. Aside 13. from being illegal as described above, such would liave adverse practical effects,pushing 'law 14 commercial noise and other impacts ever closer to existing single-family residences. 15 If this denial is not remedied, and a commercial use replaces this project, the Council 16 should consider the impact that an unspecified commercial use could have upon the proposed 17 homes for that project, and then upon the existing single-family homes to the south of that 18 project. Those homeowners have the right to expect that the transition areas to their north, as 19 designated by zoning maps and overlays which are the result of careful planning,public 20 comment, and legislative balancing, will remain, and not be replaced on an ad hoc basis by 21 commercial uses. They have the right to at least the possibility of a neighbor such as Ridgeview 22 Court,which project the Examiner found "should not have any negative impacts to the 23 surrounding property owners." Decision at 3. 24 V. CONCLUSION 25 Ridgeview Court is a good project, and the applicant simply requests that the Council 26 consider it fairly and on its merits. Ridgeview Court is supported by staff,places dense housing Nrr WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S Cairncross &Hempelmann, P.S. DECISION, RECOMMENDATION,AND DENIAL Law Offices OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION- 10 524 Second Avenue,Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98104-2323 Phone:206-587-0700•Fax:206-587-2308 (00289695.DOC;1 1 near a major transportation corridor rather than sprawling into outlying areas, does not contain 2 critical areas, and has no neighborhood opposition. It happens to be adjacent to a post office 3 which generates noise at night. The only justifications proffered for the denial are a 4 Comprehensive Plan Policy and the Examiner's discretion. The denial's reliance on these 5 justifications is substantial legal error. CPP H-90 is not inconsistent with the development 6 regulations,but even if it were inconsistent, the law is clear that the Council's adopted 7 development regulations take priority. The development regulations are the lawful expressed 8 intent of the City Council. Those regulations permit residential use on this property outright, 9 subject to a single condition. The Council exercised its discretion in demarcating this area as a 10 transition between intensive commercial uses and single-family homes. A well-designed and 11 staff-supported project application that meets all the criteria of the Council's adopted 12 development regulations should be allowed to go forward. 13 Sive 14 Dated this 7th day of March, 2005. 15 CAIRNCROSS &HEMPELMANN, P.S. 16 17 Sean K. Howe,WSBA No. 23329 18 Attorneys for Ridgeview Court,LLC 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S Cairncross &Hempelmann, P.S. DECISION,RECOMMENDATION, AND DENIAL Law Offices OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION- 11 524 Second Avenue,Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98104-2323 Phone:206-587-0700•Fax:206-587-2308 {00289695.DOC;1} Cairncross & Hempelmann, P.S. Nosy February 8, 2005 VIA FACSIMILE (425) 430-6523 AND U.S. MAIL Fred J. Kaufman Renton City Hearing Examiner's Office City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat Request for Reconsideration File No. LUA 04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF Dear Mr. Kaufman: This request for reconsideration is respectfully submitted pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100 (G) of Renton's Municipal Code,by Ridgeview Court, LLC, applicant for approval of a preliminary plat and site plan for Ridgeview Court, File# LUA 04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF. _,, The law firm of Cairncross and Hempelmann, which includes the undersigned, represents applicant in this matter. RELIEF REQUESTED The applicant requests the Hearing Examiner reconsider his January 25, 2005 recommendation to deny this preliminary plat and decision to deny the project's site plan ("Decision"), and issue a new decision approving the site plan and recommending approval of the preliminary plat. Since the denial of the site plan was driven by the recommendation on the plat, the term"Decision"will be used to describe both actions. The applicant also requests removal of conditions 2, 3, and 4 in the"Alternative Recommendation and Decision." SUMMARY This project application enjoyed the support of those who reviewed it, until the final hour, when the manager of a neighboring post office, while expressing his opinion that the project would be a great improvement of the neighborhood, voiced concern that noise from his facility would generate complaints from the project's future homeowners. Based solely on this qualified concern, the Decision denies the site plan and recommends denial of the preliminary plat. Also, the Decision is an error of law, as it relies on a comprehensive plan policy to overrule specific development regulations adopted by the City Council. These development regulations contemplate this parcel as part of a transition between intensive commercial uses and existing single-family residential areas, and authorize residential use. The Decision is an error of law, as NNW 524 Second Avenue,Suite 500 ;(ii'fir? t'. • Seattle,Washington 98104-2323 iir er t_(n, 2:)7--i:-` Phone:206-587-0700•Fax:206-587-2308 www.cairncross.com c' February 8, 2005 Noire Page 2 the issue of post office noise was part of the application's SEPA analysis, and the DNS-M was not appealed. The Decision is an error of law and fact, as several other avenues more properly address the issue of noise, including this project's SEPA analysis, the post office's SEPA analysis, and Renton's noise ordinances. The Decision is an error of fact, as there was no showing that the setbacks, fencing, elevation differential, and other design parameters are inadequate, and there is no showing that the SEPA analysis was flawed. Finally, the Decision, if left unmodified, will have adverse consequences that reach beyond the four corners of this project. Ridgeview Court is a thoughtfully planned and fully mitigated project that is supported by City staff, located exactly where the City Council intended projects of its type to be, and should be allowed to proceed. FACTS The project site is located at 327 Bremerton Avenue. The project application vested to the standards of CS (Center Suburban)zoning, though the site was later rezoned CN (Center Neighborhood). Both zones allow residential development. RMC 4-2-10, 4-2-60, 4-2-070J, 4-2- 070K. The sole conditions listed in the use tables for these zones are the density limitations and a zoning overlay. RMC 4-2-80. The project meets or exceeds these requirements. The overlay for this parcel is Area B of Renton's Suburban Centers Residential Demonstration District. The overlay's intent is to "ensure high quality residential developments Nitre within the Center Suburban and Center Neighborhood Zoning Districts" and "to require superior residential projects which complement commercial uses,provide first floor commercial activity along arterials, and provide a transition between intensive commercial areas and surrounding single family neighborhoods."RMC 4-3-095 (A) (emphasis added). This overlay specifically contemplates the proximity of"intensive"commercial uses to the residences in this district. It specifically allows residential development and detached dwellings. RMC 4-3-095 (C). This project meets or exceeds all requirements of the overlay. After thorough review, City Staff recommended approval, subject to conditions which the applicant is willing to and able to meet. Environmental review was conducted, and Staff issued a DNS-M (Determination of Non-Significance—Mitigated), which was not appealed. There are no critical areas on site. The Hearing Examiner found that the site will "blend with the commercial, mixed use and transition well into the residential uses to the south."Decision at 3. There were apparently no letters filed in opposition. The manager of a neighboring post office testified that the project would be a great improvement for the neighborhood. Decision at 3-4. In sum, the project is remarkable only in its unremarkableness. Nevertheless, at the public hearing, the post office manager expressed concern about the effect of noise that late-night and early-morning activities from his facility might have upon from future homeowners. It appears he was particularly concerned about having to answer to noise complaints. However, the issue of noise had already been addressed in the SEPA process, and the DNS-M was not appealed. February 8, 2005 'ttirr Page 3 Based solely upon this concern, the Hearing Examiner deemed the site"inappropriate" for residential developments, denied the site plan, and recommended denial of the plat application. The Decision concludes that"any residential use"of the site is "problematic." Decision at 7. The Decision recommends finding a"better use" for the site, "such as another commercial use." ARGUMENT This parcel is part of an area the City Council intended to constitute a transition between existing residential and intensive commercial uses. The Decision is an error of law, as it uses a Comprehensive Plan Policy to override specific implementing development regulations and constitutes an inappropriate rezone. The Decision's rationale, if adopted in other cases,will act to push the burden of commercial-residential transition toward the existing single-family residences, rather than in the means and location the City Council intended. 1. The Decision Errs by Using a Comprehensive Plan Policy to Override Specific Development Regulations. a. The Development Regulations and CPP H-90 Are Not Inconsistent. Now The only authority cited for denial of this project is Comprehensive Plan Policy(CPP) H- 90, requiring identification of"sites within mixed-use areas, which are appropriate for residential developments." The Decision finds that this site is not appropriate for residential developments. However, the zoning regulations and overlay which authorize residential uses on this parcel are not inconsistent with CPP H-90. As required by the Growth Management Act, the City Council implemented the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan by adopting this zoning, and this overlay, for this particular property. See RCW 36.70A.040(3). The plain text of those development regulations, and their expressed intent,prove that the City Council has already weighed precisely the type of concerns cited by the Hearing Examiner. The Council decided that the CN and CS zones would be residential-commercial transition areas, and the overlay would govern areas between intensive commercial uses and residential areas. b. In Case of Inconsistency, Development Regulations Control. Even if the development regulations were, in fact, inconsistent with CPP H-90, the law in such cases is that, in the event of inconsistency, comprehensive plan policies do not control individual private project applications, development regulations do. Citizens of Mount Vernon v. City of Mount Vernon, 133 Wn.2d 861, 947 P.2d 1209 (1997). Citizens is the post-GMA reiteration of the rule that, in case of an inconsistency, development regulations take precedence over plan policies. "A specific zoning ordinance will prevail over an inconsistent comprehensive plan." Citizens at 873 (citing Cougar Mountain Associates v. King County, 111 Wn.2d 742, February 8, 2005 Page 4 757, 765 P.2d 264 (1988)). The Citizens court held that, for a rezone, the development regulations trumped the plan policies despite the regulations' ambiguity and despite issues regarding the timing of their enactment. The situation here is far simpler than in Citizens. There is no rezone. The development regulations are unambiguous. There is no issue regarding the sequence or validity of the applicable regulations. If the development regulations prevailed over the plan policies in Citizens, they must certainly do so in this case. Both the CS zone, to which standards this project is vested, and the CN zone,the area's current zoning, allow residential detached dwellings. The overlay states that this area is designed to serve as the transition between commercial and residential uses. In fact, the overlay's intent is not merely to buffer residential areas from any commercial use, or average commercial use,but rather to serve as a transition between"intensive commercial uses and surrounding neighborhoods." (Emphasis added.) A post office with truck activity is just the sort of use for which this zoning, and this particular overlay,were designed. In fact, one could argue that it does not even qualify as "intensive." In any event, the City Council has already determined that residential uses are appropriate on this parcel, even when adjacent to intensive commercial uses. The Decision's use of a broadly written plan policy to overcome a cohesive set of highly specific '�rrr development regulations is an error of law. 2. By Precluding Residential Uses, the Decision Constitutes a Rezone of the Property to a Purely Commercial Zone Rather than the Zone the Council Intended and Adopted. In finding that residential use on this parcel is"inappropriate" under a plan policy, the Decision effectively rezones the property to a zone of purely commercial nature. In fact, in denying the residential use of this parcel, despite its well-planned nature, and despite its location in a designated commercial/residential transition area, based upon truck noise from an adjacent commercial use, the Decision effectively determines that there will be never be residential use on this parcel. Such a rezone is in direct opposition to the intent of the Council and the intent and text of the development regulations, and is error. If the Examiner applies similar reasoning to future project applications in transitional zones, then the same result will be reached and residential uses will be prohibited in all such transitional zones,unless the project happens to be fortunate enough to be located next to that rare commercial endeavor which does not require truck delivery of its merchandise, or any other impact-generating activity, to conduct its business. Now, February 8, 2005 Page 5 3. Multiple Remedies Other than Application Denial Exist to Address Noise Concerns. While the intent of guaranteeing notice to future purchasers is perhaps laudable, it is not the position or authority of the Hearing Examiner to guard against every potential negative, nor, as prescribed in the alternative decision, to require that each be inscribed on the face of the plat. There is authority in RCW 58.17 to require this kind of inscription. Moreover, the law already provides multiple other remedies that more properly address the Examiner's concern. a. Post Office Noise Was Already Part of the SEPA Review. Incoming noise upon a proposed project is a topic specifically addressed by paragraph 7b of City of Renton's SEPA checklist and was part of this application's environmental review. The ERC issued the DNS-M,provided public notice, and allowed time for appeal. If someone felt the environmental review—which specifically addressed the issue of noise from the post office— was inadequate, they should have appealed the DNS-M, as allowed by the law. There was no appeal, and it is untimely and unfair to raise this issue now. Additionally,the creation of noise by the post office is an issue that would have been Now' even more properly addressed by the SEPA analysis for the post office, not a plat application submitted by one of its neighbors. b. Noise Ordinances Protect Renton Neighbors. The first is the City of Renton's noise ordinances at RMC Title 8, Chapter 7. These ordinances are applicable to residential, commercial, and industrial zones, and incorporate most of the state's regulations at RCW 173-60. Their standards are derived from the categorization of the noise's source and recipient. While Renton Municipal Code does not make clear whether its CS and CN"receiving"zones would be considered Class A(residential) or Class B (commercial) EDNA, even if they were deemed to be Class B, fairly stringent standards from RCW 173-60 apply to their noise-generating neighbors. If the noise ordinances allow the level of noise generated by the post office, such ordinances will provide an efficient answer to the phone calls the manager is concerned about. Should the post office violate those noise ordinances, the remedy will be through code enforcement, not denial of their neighbors' development applications. c. Rezoning to Remove Residential Use Is the Purview of the City Council. Center Suburban and Center Neighborhood zones are transition zones. Renton Municipal Code allows a variety of activities in a commercial zone, any number of which could create more impact than the noise described by the post office manager. If the Examiner considers this level `fir► February 8, 2005 Page 6 of noise to be an untenable risk to future residents of the transition area, the remedy is to petition for legislative change, not deny legal plat applications. 4. Those Conditions in the Alternative Recommendation and Decision that Are Prompted by the Erroneous Denial of the Plat Are Also Erroneous. For the same reasons as stated above, Conditions 2, 3, and 4 are also legally unsupportable, as they are grounded in the same incorrect use of a general policy to overcome specific development regulations that are not inconsistent with that policy. 5. The Decision is Also Not Well-Grounded in Fact. The Decision is also not adequately supported by fact. The sole reason for finding that residential development on this site was "inappropriate"was the post office manager's concern about the possibility of receiving noise complaints. Such a concern is not adequate to deny this otherwise valid project, without exploration of whether noise being generated by the Post Office complies with applicable noise ordinances, the precise location of the trucks on the site, etc. However, again, a more appropriate venue to address and mitigate any such noise concerns would have been the SEPA process for the post office, and its findings were not appealed. err The Decision is also factually insufficient, as it contains no showing that the project's proposed setbacks, fencing, landscaping, windows, and significant advantage in height over the post office, would be insufficient to mitigate incoming noise. 6. The Decision Will Have Adverse Consequences Beyond this Application. The Decision finds that, because of the noise from the post office, that a"better use" for this particular parcel would be"another commercial use." Decision at 9. Acceptance of this finding, and applying its rationale to similar cases, will result in converting CS and CN zones— intended as urban transition zones - to purely commercial zones. Aside from an illegal rezone as described above, such would have adverse practical effects, pushing commercial noise and other impacts ever closer to existing single-family residences. For example, the parcel to the project's south is also under proposal for development. If the Decision is not reconsidered, and a commercial use replaces this project, will future applications for residential use on that neighboring parcel be denied as well? What of the homeowners in the existing single-family residences to the south,who reasonably expected that the areas to their north would be transition areas, as shown on the zoning maps and overlays, but are now likely to see commercial uses creep closer,rather than well-planned residential projects? The Examiner found that this project "should not have any negative impacts to the surrounding property owners." Decision at 3. It seems unlikely that the commercial use recommended by February 8, 2005 Page 7 this Decision would be as effective at "transition(ing)... into the residential uses to the south." Decision at 3. CONCLUSION The Decision as currently written, recommending denial of the preliminary plat, and denying the site plan, was clearly based upon genuine concern for future homeowners. However, there is no factual showing that the existing application will be inadequate to address those concerns. There is no factual showing that the applicable noise ordinances, and other remedies, are insufficient. This issue was raised during the SEPA process, and the DNS-M was not appealed. The cited support for denial of the application was a comprehensive plan policy that is not inconsistent with the development regulations,but even if it were inconsistent, the law is clear that the development regulations take priority. The development regulations are the lawful expressed intent of the legislative body regarding this particular parcel. The City Council intended this area to be a transitional zone between intensive commercial uses and single-family homes. A well-designed and staff-supported project application that meets the criteria of the Council's adopted development regulations should be allowed to go forward. Very truly yours, W Sean Howe SKH:mcd cc: Parties of record: Nancy Weil Juliana Fries Cliff Williams Bob Wenzl Kevin Chamberlin 02/37/2005 11:34 FAX 1 206 587 2308 CAIRNCROSS [6 002 �A ... Cairncross &Hempelmann, 12, ;. • February 17, 2005 VIA FACSIMILE(425) 430-6523 AND U.S. MAIL Fred J. Kaufman Renton City Hearing Examiner's Office City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Corrected: Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat Request for Reconsideration File No. LUA 04-131,PP, SA-H,ECF Dear Mr. Kaufman: err It has been brought to our attention that our February 8, 2005 request for reconsiderat on contains a typographical error. Under subheading 3, the second sentence should read "There is no authority in RCW 58.17 to require this kin.d of inscription." I apologize for this error and have included a corrected copy. If you have any questio is, please contact me at(206)254-4475. Thank you. Very truly yours, Sean Howe SKCI-I:mcd Enclosure cc: Parties of record: Nancy Weil Juliana Fries Cliff Williams Bob Wenzl Kevin Chamberlin NOW/ Law Offices ;O02X?ac,4.1 -)C.t 529 Second Avenue,Suite 500 huax,kcrirrtc,r Seattle,Wnshingtnn 9810E-2323 dirret:t-0r3'2.'r-44:' Phone;206-537-0700-Fax 206.5.47.230S G www.(a tT>T CT 055.C 07!T CIT a OF RENTON .t Hearing Examiner Fred J.Kaufman Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor February 22, 2005 Sean Howe Cairncross & Hempelmann, P.S. 524 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98104 Re: Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat, LUA 04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF Dear Mr. Howe: This office has reviewed the Request for Reconsideration submitted by the applicant. The following comments address the request. The applicant appears to insist that the City Council already decided that this site was found appropriate for the proposed use. They make it sound as if this specific site had been reviewed when adopting the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning. Nothing of that sort occurred. The rezoning and review was a bit more global than a site-specific rezone of this site. There certainly was no determination that this site would be appropriate for residential uses and not one of the other uses permitted in the CS (CN)zone such as commercial uses. The applicant also argues that the proposed use is an almost perfect transitional use between the intense commercial uses found in the area,-the-post off ce use-in particular and the residential uses south of here. Where this misses the point is that the proposed use provides no transition from the detached single family uses south of the subject site and the commercial uses, since the proposed project itself is solely, a detached single-family development that would not be buffered or protected from the intense commercial use. Yes, it is a more dense residential use but it is still unabashedly single family and unabashedly detached. Where is the transition? What transitional use protects the applicant's proposed homes and its future residents from the intense commercial uses? Where is this vaunted transition? Both the Site Plan Ordinance and the Platting provisions provide a measure of discretion in determining whether a site is appropriate for a proposed use. Is the applicant suggesting that anytime a plat or site plan is rejected as inappropriate for a specific site, it results in a rezone of that site? If so,then the applicant appears to have ruled out any discretion in reviewing a proposed use of property. A plat for a specific purpose must serve the public use and interest. If it appears that it will fail to serve the public use and interest it may be denied. At one time land use codes allowed what was termed "pyramidal" uses. Lower intensity uses were permitted and each permitted the next lower intensity use. The result was that single-family uses could be developed adjacent to a factory. The City generally eliminated pyramidal zoning but did allow some districts to have a mix of uses but it did not just adopt a code that outright permitted residential next to commercial in all cases. It provided a variety of reviews such as Conditional Use Permits, Site Plan Review and Platting. In all of these reviews the specifics of the proposal are to be reviewed in not a vacuum but in conjunction with the subject site's characteristics, its neighborhood and the impacts. In other words, there is discretion. Not all proposals are appropriate. 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055-(425)430-6515 RENTON February 22, 2005 Mr. Sean Howe Page 2 The applicant either wholly dismisses or wholly ignores the nature of the post office deliveries when it states: "unless the project happens to be fortunate enough to be located next to that rare commercial endeavor which does not require truck delivery of its merchandise, or any other impact-generating activity, to conduct its business." (Page 4, Last Paragraph) While there may be other uses where deliveries occur in the middle of the night such as grocery stores, perhaps, but the post office is assured that its deliveries will occur in the middle of the night. This office will also hazard a guess that most commercial uses also do not test their 39 delivery vans'horns at 6:30 am or thereabouts six days a week. Once again, an applicant argues that if something was not addressed or conditioned in a SEPA determination,then this office is precluded from looking at it in terms of the actual development proposal. Just because SEPA did not find noise so significant as to require the preparation of an EIS does not mean that the noise emanating from the post office site does not have profound impacts on a housing use. Can the applicant seriously be suggesting that noises of gravity- propelled doors clanging in the middle of the night are mere ambient disturbances? Does the applicant claim that thirty-nine delivery trucks testing their horns at 6:30am is just your routine neighborly sounds? The applicant then suggests that if noise were a significant issue that it should have been addressed during review of the post office. That may have been something that should have been done but if it were not done appropriately, does that mean compounding the error and just simply` ignoring it now? In reviewing land use applications, one would hope that one is not bound by an earlier error, have to repeat it or not be permitted to rectify it. In addition, while it may be more complex for the applicant, two separate reviews occur-an environmental review and then a public hearing, land use review. This office's jurisdiction to review pennits is separate from the jurisdiction of the ERC. This office looks at a different set of issues and different aspects of a request and may appropriately deny or condition a proposal. The ERC on the other hand has no authority to deny a request but merely determine its environmental impacts and possibly require the preparation of an EIS. It was during a public hearing on this request that testimony raised the noise issue, described the times and types of noise and suggested that complaints were expected because of the noise of the postal operations. The applicant suggests that upon hearing that testimony that it is now too late to address those issues? That is ludicrous and wrong. The ultimate decision should not be read to be depriving the applicant of reasonable use of its property. Zoning is a police power and already has the ability to limit the free use of property. The Zoning Code, Land Use Provisions and Platting Ordinance provide for additional review of proposals under the Zoning Code and permit limitations on uses that do not serve the public use and interest. The applicant can development other uses. It is not as if the decision,actually recommendation, would deny the applicant of all beneficial use of its property. The property is not zoned to allow only residential uses. The property generally may be used for medical and dental offices, general offices, daycare, adult care, veterinary offices,retail sales, eating and drinking establishments and other uses. Residential use is just one of a panoply of uses permitted in the zone and on the subject site. The applicant then goes on to suggest that providing potential purchasers of information about the noise is unacceptable. Clearly, where is the public benefit in hiding that information? It is not an February 22, 2005 Mr. Sean Howe Page 3 aspect of the property that one would inherently realize when viewing the property during the day or even during evenings. It would only be discovered when a purchaser wakes up at I a.m. in the morning to discover that noises from delivery trucks occur. This office would imagine that the applicant anticipates the potential purchasers will enter the post office, get on line to buy stamps and inquire about what time the large delivery trucks arrive, what kind of mechanisms are used to open and close doors and do you test your trucks horns at 6:30 am six days a week? The entire act of zoning property, setting aside districts for certain uses and screening out incompatible uses, is one of benevolent paternalism. The government took on that role to assure that their residents were protected from certain incompatibilities inherent in different land uses. It is the role governments have chosen. In this case the choices are limited. Either the request to allow detached single-family homes should be denied or the City can do its best to make sure potential residents know about the hidden defects of this property. The issue of noise regulation is one that was not explored at the hearing. The post office may not be subject to all of Renton's regulations as the building itself was not subject to all of the City's own regulations. It is not clear that the Post Office, a division of the Federal government is subject to all of the controls available under the City's Zoning Codes or Noise Ordinances. The City has an obligation to make sure that any plat serves the public use and interest. As proposed, this project does not serve those interests. And nothing in the Zoning Code "requires" that transitional uses between commercial uses such as the Post Office and the single family uses south of the site be solely residential uses such as proposed. Nothing suggests that transitional uses cannot be some other form of less intrusive commercial or office use that would serve as a buffer between the post office noise and the single-family homes south of the subject site. Commercial uses less intrusive than the post office are certainly a viable possibility that can be considered. Finally, the applicant has indicated that acoustic measures could probably be employed to solve or minimize the potential noise problems. As the applicant has argued in its request for reconsideration,the applicant and City knew about the noise issues. Therefore, the information on noise was available and the applicant should have had responses at the public hearing. The information was or should have been available so that it is now inappropriate to introduce that information. But if the City Council determines that such information should be utilized before making a final decision in this case,then an acoustic engineer of the City's choosing but financed by the applicant should be employed to measure the noises that are generated by the post office and suggest measures that can reduce the impacts to single family homes. Measurements should take into consideration real world situations and not require that all windows be sealed to reduce noise to a reasonable level. All measures should be aimed at reducing noise when summer conditions or other similar conditions exist where normal residents might wish to have open windows in the middle of the night and early morning. Therefore, any review should consider fencing, landscaping,topography and wall-type and glazing that can reduce the noise but with a frank discussion of the practical outcome of such measures on sleep. In conclusion, this office sees no reason at this juncture to change its primary recommendation that the City Council deny the Preliminary Plat since it does not serve the public use and interest. February 22, 2005 Mr. Sean Howe Page 4 If this office can provide any further assistance, please feel free to write. This decision may be appealed to the City Council by March 8, 2005. Sincerely, • Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton FK/nt cc: Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Neil Watts, Development Services Jennifer Henning, Development Services Nancy Weil, Development Services Juliana Fries, Development Services Cliff Williams Bob Weitz' Kevin Chamberlin January 25, 2005 vim, OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Minutes APPLICANT: Cliff Williams,PE PO Box 2401 Kirkland, WA 98083 Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA 04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF LOCATION: 327 Bremerton Avenue NE SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Approval for Site Plan,Preliminary Plat and Code Modification for subdividing a 2.4-acre site into 20 lots for development of single-family dwellings. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on December 28,2004. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining Niro' available information on file with the application,field checking the property and surrounding area;the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the January 4, 2005 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday,January 4,2005,at approximately 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No.2: Neighborhood Detail Map application,proof of posting,proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No.3: Preliminary Plat Plan Exhibit No.4: Preliminary Site Plan Exhibit No. 5: Revised Site Plan showing 26' Private Exhibit No. 6: Topography Map Access and Utility Easement *ire Exhibit No.7: Tree Cutting/Clearing Plan Exhibit No. 8: Landscaping Plan .4 Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 2 Nord Exhibit No. 9: Grading Plan Exhibit No. 10: Utility Plan Exhibit No. 11: Elevation Plan for Lots 5, 6, 15 & 16 Exhibit No. 12: Elevation Plan for Lots 2 & 20 Exhibit No. 13: Elevation Plan for Lots 3, 9 & 12 Exhibit No. 14: Elevation Plan for Lot 13 Exhibit No. 15: Elevation Plan for Lots 10 & 18 Exhibit No. 16: Elevation Plan for Lots 4, 7, 8, 14 & 17 Exhibit No. 17: Elevation Plan for Lots 1, 11 & 19 Exhibit No. 18: Zoning Map The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Nancy Weil. Senior Planner, Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The site is located south of NE 4th Street and to the west of Bremerton Avenue NE. Approval for site plan, preliminary plat for 20 lots on a 2.4- acre site for the eventual development of single-family dwellings. Access to this site off of Bremerton, which will require improvements, is proposed by a public street(NE 3`d Lane)to end in a cul-de-sac plus additional easements that will radiate from that cul-de-sac. There are no protected critical areas and it is vested to the development regulations for the Center Suburban (CS)zoning and is located in the Centers Residential Bonus District B. The zoning did change in November of 2004, however the filing for this preliminary plat was before the changes and so is vested to the CS zone. The current.zoning is CN. Two street modifications were requested and approved, one a reduced right-of-way width of 42 feet and second a reduced'radius on the cul-de-sac of 50 feet. Three private access easements will extend off of NE 3`d Lane to serve access to all 20 lots. Lots 9— 13 will have rear entry garages with front of each lot facing east with an 18- foot pedestrian access to the front of those lots. The site is relatively flat with a berm located near the southeast corner of the site. There is some loose fill but has been deemed suitable for the proposed development. The site is vegetated with blackberry bushes, small deciduous and coniferous trees which are to be removed as part of the site preparation. An additional modification from the Suburban Centers Residential Bonus District B would allow greater front yard setbacks for lots 8 through 13 rather than the maximum 15 feet permitted in the CS zone. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance—Mitigated(DNS-M)with seven mitigation measures. No appeals were filed. The preliminary plat criteria for the Comprehensive Plan Designation was in compliance for this development. The minimum yard area provided would comply with the land area per dwelling unit. There are no minimum requirements for lot width or depth within the CS zone. All lots meet the maximum lot coverage of 65%. The proposal meets all the setback requirements. The net density of 12.42 dwelling units per acre is within the allowed density range of the CS zone. Based on the building elevations provided by the applicant,the proposed residential structures would comply with, or possibly exceed the requirements of Bonus District B of the Centers Residential Overlay. There are seven elevations for this site, all are two-story with rear or side entrance garages. Landscaping,access and parking meet or exceed the requirements of the Bonus District B and are in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat File No.: ILA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 3 Noe The lot arrangements as well as size,shape and orientations are all in compliance, meeting the minimum width and area requirements. The lots are at 90-degree angles, some of the structures will be facing a different direction,they seem to flow well. There will be no direct vehicular access onto Bremerton from any of the proposed lots. The applicant is required to dedicate right-of-way for the improvement for Bremerton Avenue. Twenty-four feet is currently shown for the private access easement,staff has discussed this with the applicant and they are in agreement that this could be reduced to function more as a private alleyway,which allows a minimum of 16 feet in width with 14 feet of pavement. As long as 24-feet of back out area is provided for each garage,the staff feels that the reduced width of the street will lend itself to an alleyway residential look rather than splitting up the tier of lots. This also gives a larger yard area to those lots. Staff recommends the establishment of a homeowner's association or maintenance agreement for the landscaped right-of-way improvements, as well as for any shared private utilities/drainage facilities or private access and utility easements and to include the private pedestrian access easement. The surrounding properties to the west, north and east are zoned CS. To the south is a proposed single-family residential development with existing single-family to the southeast in R-8 zoning. Anacortes Avenue NE will act as a buffer between the proposed single-family homes along the western property line and the existing commercial use(Post Office site)on the abutting property. Traffic, Fire and Park mitigation fees•were imposed by the ERC. • The subject site is located within the Renton School District and they have indicated that they can handle the proposed 8 new students from the new development. The site is located within the Cedar River Basin. The applicant has submitted a Drainage Report that indicates that on-site surface water would be directed to a stormwater detention facility located in the southwest corner of the site. The drainage analysis and design of the stormwater system appears to be in accordance with the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual Level 2 flow control requirements. The project will require the installation of new water mains, fire hydrants, fire control systems,and meters, all to be placed within City held easements. The project would require a new sewer main along the site frontage and new sewer mains as required to serve the new single-family lots. In regards to the Site Plan Criteria,the project is in compliance with the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Land use regulations with modifications are in compliance as well. The seven house plans for the 20 lots are sufficient to lend variation to the project. This site will also blend with the commercial, mixed use and transition well into the residential uses to the south. This development should not have any negative impacts to the surrounding property owners. The site does require clearing and all existing structures to be removed. Staff recommends approval of the Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat subject to conditions. Cliff Williams, 5326 SW Manning Street, Seattle, WA 98116 stated that he is an employee of the developer and they are satisfied with the recommendations that the City has provided. Kevin Chamberlin, 18930 45"' Place NE, Lake Forest Park, WA 98155,manager of the Renton Highlands Station of the US Postal Service that will be adjacent to Lots 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13. This use for that property ,D Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat FileNo.: LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 4 will be a great improvement for the neighborhood, however,the Post Office will have an impact on them. There are semi-tractor trailer rigs that come into the property at all hours of the day and night. They all enter and leave through a driveway that will take them next the above-mentioned lots. It is most likely that these people will feel an impact from this traffic. Some of the trailers come in as early as 1:00 am in December and at 3:15 am the rest of the year. They continue at intervals throughout the day along with a lot of other truck traffic. There is a gravity operated dock plate system(used to unload the trucks)that makes quite a bit of noise and it cannot be modified in any way. There also are 39 delivery vehicles that are required to be inspected each morning between 6:30 and 7:30 am. Part of the vehicle inspection is a short sounding of the horn. (Mr. Chamberlin drew the location of the delivery trucks on the vicinity map) Bob Wenzl, 636 Lake Sammamish Lane NE, Bellevue, WA 98008 stated that he is the owner of Ridgeview Court LLC. He is completely aware of the post office site there,he knows where most of the vehicles and work that will be going on in that neighborhood. It is anticipated that the property to the north will be a commercial type of zone. They are confident that the post office and the new residents will make good neighbors. Juliana Fries, Development Services the report given is accurate and the Level 2 Storm Water detention is adequate. The Examiner stated that it would be necessary to address the post office concerns,the developer may be comfortable with the situation, but the future buyers of these homes may not. What enhancements car, be provided? Ms. Weil pointed out besides the difference in the grade and the 26-foot easement the structures to first be impacted will be the garages. Bedrooms will be upstairs, looking over the garages and subject to the noises that could be generated at 1:00 am and 3:00 am. Once property owners take possession of the property,they may wish to enhance that back area, no additional requirements have been made for landscaping. No additional fencing has been required along this property line, but certainly it could be done. Mr. Wenzl stated that they had no concerns about providing a fence or some kind of hedge screening if the space is available. A 6-foot fence would be appropriate. Again there is the elevation change from the parking lot approximately a 6 to 10-foot drop from their parking structures to the large rockery along that easterly property line. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at approximately 9:48 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Ridgeview Court, LLC, filed a request for a Site Plan Review approval and a 20-lot Preliminary Plat. There was also a request to modify the front yard setback for homes in the project. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report,the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit#1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee(ERC),the City's responsible official issued a Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M). Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-131. PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 5 Nome 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located at 327 Bremerton Avenue NE. The subject site is located on the west side of Bremerton Avenue a half-block south of NE 4th Street. Union Avenue NE is located west of the subject site. 6. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan was changed in November 2004. The area in which the subject site is located was designated for the development of Commercial Center uses but is now designated for Commercial Corridor. 7. Policy H-90 states: "Identify sites within mixed-use areas, which are appropriate for residential developments." Policy 11-85 states: "Provide homeownership opportunities in all neighborhoods." 8. The subject site is currently zoned CN (Center Neighborhood)but was zoned CS (Center Suburban) when the application was submitted. The applicant is vested under the prior regulations which allow a density of l 0 to 20 units per acre for residential development. The minimum lot area for single family uses in the prior CS zone were 1,200 square feet of which 250 square feet must be landscaped yard. The subject site was also located in the Area B Suburban Centers Residential Demonstration District and is governed by additional Site Plan Review criteria. 9. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1480 enacted in April 1954. 10. The subject site is approximately 2.4 acres or 104,373 square feet. It is almost square and is approximately 330 feet wide(north to south)along Bremerton and 316 feet deep. 11. The subject site is relatively level with a berm in the southeast corner where slopes range from 15 to 24 percent. The berm appears to be a result of grading on the adjacent parcel of land. The site is also approximately eight(8)feet higher than the adjacent parcel to the west. 12. The area contains a mix of uses and undeveloped property. The relatively new Post Office is located directly west of the north half of the subject site. 13. The applicant proposes removing all vegetation, blackberry,and deciduous and conifer trees from the subject site to allow development of the building pads,roads and driveways. The applicant may import approximately 4,800 cubic yards of fill material to grade the site and roads. 14. The applicant proposes dividing the subject site into 20 single-family lots that will contain detached single-family homes. The lots will be arranged around a series of private roads, alley-like roads and easements that originate from a new roadway that terminates in a cul-de-sac. Basically,a series of dead end roads will be created off of a dead end cul-de-sac. Ridgeview Court Preliminary Hat File No.: LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 6 15. Administrative approval was granted to allow the cul-de-sac street's width to be reduced to 42 feet and the radius of the cul-de-sac to be reduced to 50 feet. Staff noted that the applicant would have to dedicate 17.5 feet to the widening of Bremerton which currently does not meet City standards. 16. The three private easements will extend north and south from the new cul-de-sac street. The proposed lots along Bremerton, Proposed Lots 1-3 and 18-20 would take their access off the first of these easements rather than Bremerton. These lots would be rear-loaded from this alley. Proposed Lots 4-7 and 14-17 would use the second of the easements. Lots would face each other across this easement roadway(see attached maps). Finally, a new private street, labeled Anacortes Avenue NE, would provide access to Proposed Lot 8 and the storm drainage tract on the south and Proposed Lots 9-13 on the north. Staff has recommended that the 24-foot private street paralleling the rear of homes that front Bremerton be reduced to a 16-foot alley width with 14 feet of paving and 24-feet of backout space to decrease impervious surface and create a private street appearance. 17. The density for the plat would be 12.42 dwelling units per acre after subtracting roadway areas. 18. The homes would be two-stories. The dwelling or building groupings would vary from those along Bremerton being traditional facing a street,to the interior groupings facing a kind of courtyard private street,to those in the rear facing an interior street. Sidewalks could connect all of the units to one another and through the private easements to the public street. 19. The CS zone permits a lot coverage of 65%whereas a lot coverage of not more than 44% is proposed for this complex. A front yard setback of between 10 and 15 feet is required. Staff has granted a modification that allows a setback for Proposed Lots 8 to 13 to have a greater setback to allow pedestrian access and rear access garages on a 26-foot wide private street. A minimum side yard of 3 feet with no projections is required unless there is abutting residential zoning. The R-10 district south of the subject site will require a 15-foot setback on Proposed Lots 1, 5, 6 and 8. 20. The District B overlay guidelines require building forms to contain both vertical and horizontal modulations at a minimum width of 2 feet at intervals of 40 feet as well as individual private entry features. It appears that the buildings will comply with these requirements. Two enclosed parking spaces that open onto a non-front facade and away from arterial streets will be provided as required. 21. The applicant will be providing the required 250 feet of landscaped area on each lot. Landscaping will consist of lawn,and a mix of conifer and deciduous trees and shrubs. 22. The subject site is located within the Renton School District. The project is expected to generate approximately 8 school age children. These students would be spread across the grades and would be assigned on a space available basis. 23. The development will increase traffic approximately 200 vehicle trips per day and add approximately 20 trips to each peak hour travel period. 24. Stormwater would be contained in the southwest corner of the subject site in Tract A. The plat would comply with the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual,Level 2 flow requirements. 25. Sewer and water would be provided by the City. Appropriate extensions of the water and sewer mains would be required. Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-131, PP. SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 7 �`ir✓ 26. The Manager of the adjacent Post Office testified that the post office has 39 delivery vehicles. Postal employees start-up each of the 39 vehicles and test their horns between 6:30 A.M. and 7:30 A.M. He also testified that large tractor trailer rigs arrive at the post office site at 1:00 A.M. during the month of December and 3:15 A.M. the rest of the year, as well as other hours during a 24-hour day. They arrive near the rear of the post office site which would place them along the western or rear edge of the subject property. They can make quite a lot of noise as they park and then depart as well as during their loading or unloading operations in which gravity activated dock plates are used (while this was not spelled out, it appears that rather than use some potentially quiet hydraulic system, the large plates merely fall and clang into place). Large trucks also may have backup beepers as safety equipment. During busier seasons such as Christmas there can be quite a lot of nighttime traffic at the site. He expressed his concerns that residents of the subject site's new dwellings would be disturbed by the noise,especially during what would normally be sleep hours. He does not want to have to deal with complaints that he is sure will be generated by the normal post office operations if residential housing is constructed so close to the post office. He did support a change to the neighborhood from development but was concerned about the impacts noise would have on the proposed single-family homes. 27. The applicant indicated that they were aware of the noise issue and that they believe distance, approximately 40 to 50 feet between the roadway and setbacks, as well as a grade separation coupled with a fence and landscaping will minimize any problems with noise disturbing residents. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary Plat Istrow ]. First,this proposal includes two components. The first one is a Preliminary Plat on which this office makes a recommendation to the City Council. The second component is a Site Plan review since the proposed plat will be used for single-family detached homes and is,therefore, governed by the Centers Residential Bonus District B. This office finds itself in a difficult role in making a recommendation to the City Council on this project. The proposed plat that will allow single family uses on the subject site does not appear to serve the public use and interest. Under those circumstances,the proposed plat should be denied by the City Council. 2. The compelling issue in this case is one of untoward noise or noises at a time or actually,times of day, when they are or can be exceptionally disturbing. The representative of the Post Office has indicated that uses on the post office site are almost completely incompatible with a residential quality of life. Tractor trailer rigs and other large trucks and vans will be coming and going from the post office site during all hours of the day and night. The trucks are loud. Backup beepers may be employed. Truck and post office doors will be opening and closing during various operations. These aspects of the neighboring uses make use of the subject site for single family or any residential use problematic. 3. At the same time, free-market concepts suggest that a property owner should be able to do what they want with their property. But in this case the current owner would develop homes and sell those homes to third parties who may not be in a position to know about the potential impacts created by the adjacent post office. The City has an obligation to make sure that it does not allow incompatible uses to be developed adjacent to one another. That is one of the primary purposes of Zoning and Land Use regulations. It does not necessarily matter if the parties may agree to such uses. There is an overriding public policy that governs such matters. In this case, the current developer may be well-aware, as he states, of the nature of the adjacent uses but that does not mean some innocent purchaser who views the btkaisv properties during daylight, or even during the evening will be made aware of traffic and noises that erupt in the dead of night, between 1:00 A.M. to 3:00 A.M. Not everyone visits their potential Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 8 neighborhood at such hours or even perhaps at 6:30 A.M.when postal delivery trucks are started, tested and horns sounded. 4. This is certainly one of those situations that calls for a transition from more intense, in this case 24-hour uses, to less intense uses. The subject site might be more suitable for a commercial or office use. It does not appear suitable for a single-family use. A mere fence or wall and landscaping even coupled with some distance will not provide sufficient buffering to make it easy to sleep during periods of heavy activity at the adjacent site. Noise that might fade into the ambient noises of a vibrant neighborhood during the day can be extremely disturbing or disruptive when those noises occur during very quiet times. The City certainly does not want its future residential homes to be blighted by the adjacent uses. Usually, the question is the opposite -that the development will not create blight and will rectify blight. But the impacts from next door cannot be ignored. They cannot but have a negative impact on the quality of life for anybody living adjacent to the post office. 5. The Comprehensive Plan contains Policy H-90. That policy requires the City to: "identify sites within mixed-use areas, which are appropriate for residential developments." While Policy H-85 states: "Provide homeownership opportunities in all neighborhoods." • These policies are not necessarily conflicting and H-85 should not be read to say that residential uses have to be provided everywhere in all neighborhoods. Context is still important. The overriding concern should be to identify appropriate sites where residential development is appropriate. Should an undesirable housing situation be created where sleep patterns would be disturbed by the arrival of larger tractor trailer rigs in the middle of the night or twice during the night? Should residents automatically be awakened whether they want to be or not by postal employees starting up 39 vehicles and testing their horns between 6:30 A.M. and 7:30 A.M. six days a week? If populations in the area increase,will there be a commensurate increase in delivery trucks being tested at that time of the morning? Will residents be able to sleep through the noises,said to be quite loud, of gravity operated dock plate systems at 1:00 A.M. or 3:00 A.M. when deliveries occur? It seems that the proposed location is not one of those "mixed-use areas, which are appropriate for residential developments." 6. Of course, one could cynically conclude that the deleterious nature of the post office's use would result in the single-family homes being priced more modestly,thereby creating a new stock of more affordable homes. There is also an issue which this office cannot truly address of whether the post office's use might in fact constitute a nuisance that adversely affects the applicant's use of their property. The nature of the City Zoning Code though plays a part when it allows potentially disparate uses adjacent to one another. But that is where the City's discretion in regulating, limiting or conditioning uses comes into play. While the Zoning under which the applicant seeks approval permits single family uses in this mixed-use area, it does not mandate they be permitted. It would allow such use only after considering the site and its surroundings. Analysis needs to be done. The Code does not mandate that these uses be crafted abutting each other. First,one has to consider whether the plat and site plan are in the public use and interest. This office has to conclude that, as now proposed,the public use and interest is not served by the proposal. 7. Based on the above analysis,the recommendation, hard as it is to reach, is that the City Council should *40001 deny the proposed Preliminary Plat. Ridgeview Court Preliminary Hat File No.: LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H. ECF January 25, 2005 Page 9 fir✓' 8. If on the other hand,the City Council concludes that the plat serves the public use and interest it might seek to impose some conditions that could help the potential purchasers form a knowledgeable decision. One solution might be to include a set of covenants that require that all sales literature and the face of the plat include information that the post office operations may create loud noises during the course of a day and that such noise might interfere with sleep in units located on the subject site. That will avoid the situation of potential purchasers seeing the subject site and its homes during the day and not have any realization that the post office operations occur during the night and such operations might make sleep difficult or disturbed. Obviously,this still allows units that may be severely affected by the noise to be built as opposed to finding a better use for the site that would not be affected by nocturnal noise, such as another commercial use. 9. This office therefore, would again recommend that the City Council deny a residential plat on the subject site but that if it chooses to approve this proposed plat, that it adopt some strict disclosure requirements. As the Post Office Manager noted, he really is not going to be happy fielding questions and complaints about the operations from future residents that this applicant acknowledges but that innocent purchasers will not be as knowledgeable about. Site Plan 10. The Site Plan is denied as the property should not be platted as proposed and the site plan is therefore, inappropriate. This office will provide an alternative decision on the Site Plan in order to allow the proposal to proceed if the City Council decides to approve the • proposed Preliminary Plat. 11. In the event that the City Council determines that the Preliminary Plat should be approved, this office will review the proposed Site Plan. The site plan review will treat this analysis as if the plat were approved for 20 lots as proposed by the applicant. As noted above, if the plat and site plan are approved,there should be disclosures regarding the nature of the noise that might be generated on the adjacent post office site as well as the timing of those noises. In addition, clearly, buffering this site from those noises should be considered an important matter to assure some quality of residential living. 12. Residential uses are permitted in this general area by the Comprehensive Plan. Integration of single family uses then depends on mitigating the impacts of adjacent uses on the site so that it possesses residential amenities. The Comprehensive Plan suggests buffering incompatible uses from one another, particularly, if transitional uses cannot be used to separate the disparate uses. 13. The twenty proposed homes meet the Zoning Code's former R-5 Zoning District's density requirements. The applicant is proposing appropriate setbacks from streets and adjacent properties including the larger buffer required between this site and its southerly, R-10 neighbor. A requested deviation from the maximum front yard setback of 15 feet to one of 28-feet allows for pedestrian and vehicular access and appears reasonable with the proposed courtyard layout and streetscape. The lots each provide their allotment of landscaped open space. 14. The development of the subject site will create construction related impacts but those will disappear -*owonce the project is complete. There will be some additional traffic generated by the development but that should not create any substantial impacts on the transportation corridors. In addition, a traffic mitigation fee will help offset any impacts. As noted in the earlier plat discussion,there could be Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat File No: LUA-04-131, PP. SA-H, ECF January 25. 2005 Page 10 ,4400 impacts on the operations of the adjacent post office in the way of complaints about noise. In order to lessen some of the impacts, a sound barrier masonry wall should be erected along the north and west property lines of the subject site. Such wall should be designed by acoustical engineers to provide noise attenuation. In addition, landscaping should be installed to further assist in noise reduction and limiting the visual cues which play a part in noise perception. The two-story homes and grade difference will make it hard to limit noise penetration to the subject site. 15. The site plan appears to make reasonable use of the subject site. The buildings provide a reasonable amount of separation from one another. The buildings contain the necessary Demonstration District modulation and articulation as well as side or rear loading garages. 16. There are urban services such as sewer and water available to serve the 20 new homes. Mitigation fees, to offset impacts to parks, have been imposed. 17. In conclusion,this office recommends that the City Council deny the proposed plat and site plan as incompatible with the adjoining post office operation and an inappropriate use of property that even though zoned CS is not well-located to afford the residential amenities that should be guaranteed by traditional zoning demarcations and land use development criteria. RECOMMENDATION: • The City Council should deny the proposed plat. DECISION: • The Site Plan is denied as the property should not be platted as proposed and the site plan is therefore, inappropriate. Alternative Recommendation and Decision If the City Council approves the Preliminary Plat then the Site Plan should be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the conditions imposed by the ERC. 2. The applicant shall execute restrictive covenants that require all sales literature and sales listings initially and subsequently to note the location of the post office and that the post office operations may create loud noises during the course of a night and very early morning hours six(6)days a week and that such noise might interfere with sleep in units located on the subject site. 3. Corresponding language about the post office noise shall be included on the face of the plat. 4. The applicant shall construct a sound barrier masonry wall along the north and west property lines of the subject site. Such wall should be designed by acoustical engineers to provide noise attenuation. In addition, landscaping shall be installed to further assist in noise reduction and is designed to limit the visual cues which play a part is noise perception. 5. The applicant shall revise the plat to reflect the easement along the rear of lots I through 3 and 18 through 20 to be an alley right-of-way with a width of 16 feet with a minimum of 14 feet of pavement. Nod Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page I I The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the recording of the final plat. 6. The applicant shall be required to post the 26-foot private access easement(Anacortes Avenue NE)with "No Parking"signage on each side. Staff recommends the applicant shall comply with this requirement to the satisfaction of the Development Services Division prior to the recording of the final plat. 7. A homeowner's association or maintenance agreement shall be created concurrently with the recording of the final plat in order to establish maintenance responsibilities for landscaped right-of-way improvements, as well as for any shared private utilities/drainage facilities or private access and utility easements to include the private pedestrian access easement. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the recording of the final plat. 8. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and complete all inspections and approvals for all buildings located on the property prior to the recording of the final plat. The satisfaction of this requirement is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Project Manager. ORDERED THIS 25day of January 2005. • FRED J. KAUF N rrr' HEARING EXA INER TRANSMITTED THIS 25"'day of January 2005 to the parties of record: Nancy Weil Cliff Williams Bob Wenzl 1 055 S Grady Way 5326 SW Manning Street 636 Lake Sammamish Lane NE Renton, WA 98055 Seattle, WA 98116 Bellevue, WA 98008 Juliana Fries Kevin Chamberlin 1055 S Grady Way 18930 45th Place NE Renton, WA 98055 Lake Forest Park, WA 98155 TRANSMITTED THIS 25th day of January 2005 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler ,Stan Engler,Fire Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Larry Meckling, Building Official Julia Medzegian,Council Liaison Planning Commission Larry Warren, City Attorney Transportation Division Gregg Zimmerman,PBPW Administrator Utilities Division Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Neil Watts, Development Services Now Jennifer Henning, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services King County Journal Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat File No-.: LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 12 Pursuant to Title IV,Chapter 8, Section 100Gof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,February 8,2005. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure,errors of law or fact,error in judgment,or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen(14)days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record,take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV,Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,February 8,2005. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one)communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not comm:nicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. `rr�' SECTION 16 TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH RANGE 5 EAST W.M. / I, I I! I 006 ,o a 0.0 '. / t 10230 102x06 /)374 at...) 0020 92 90x6- 3x0 9425 ' w 9 1 J NE 4th ST Z i . 2 Ao.) - 1008 i 1 O 821 6 1.11V 1161n \ e 162306 162306 9067 162x06 AllBi g �• W W eo.1.2w !ill; 162306 9112 ,e2,0 60039 ` 518210 Z 1$2306 162306 N6u so eo p 9145 Y�.W 152305 15 05 `9071 9094 Dtox + (044 AO 9002 yOy C 1018 98iR tP 518210 0041 W W.�,, 0 0 YAt N.1 PM NI �•••" 162306 "2084 """ 0 6 „i Z z M518210.0010 ti L4 0031 [ m Q ° 1 0"0`w 9072 1981:3r038 H.33Aa) (1.0 Ac,) 5 RIR j 518210mmillatit �” `nom X 0,6210.0013 4' 0020 '\.,,, 152305 152305-9034 i � -T,nram fin) I„nl �� L,„ 1 ,.r,N9035 152305 , oz a 616210•9914 i -I SITE w,9w 9 �9 � O M0+,2 �� (1.34 ACJ i 9032 '��; F W ,,.., f r•••.; I ai�bi"h. E j ° 12292 152305-9030 9038 I (3,e8 Ao.) Cs) nu,wa Va •M ) •.r, - Wit A.1 ic\ 6,az,o ,� W . 1, 0060 U 816210.0081 i W 152305-9212 M.►2 A.) 0 152305 162305 ,"'" • .., ..n g 18210 I w 152305 W 9075 920A8 152 rii•Aii 9030 > 9222 5162,0 Ii � 0089 61e210 0 a = (2,14 M.) 152305-9211 16230$ s (1.20 Aa) 0068 .--) 9046 " t, .-., ��515210-0049 € Y..w "-' 152305 i I. g ,11 - NE 2nd PL - ---•-- r c+') 66,661'61 co 9205 (� (!I "'1 1r- e- 162306 1 III 1Ev:.4g rzina0621=3.11 "621 1 152305-9215 152305.9044 9223 84 518210 152305 (9.NA) (OM6►) (9.79 A..) e 162306 15 5 , .�, WIWI I� 0051 ' 9213 9214 I ,62x96 I ,awe f l I E ( Q� . .-)j ; ...:i..3.. I 1166.,) 9177 I 9207 48 (1,12 ACJ ,,.,w Y.. 152305-9038 152305-9082 (1.04 ACJ i ---NE 2nd ST----' q,.,»1.111[ 10.NM) (1.19 Aa) )7 62 T;sE132;; E • HMO VPIr - • 105 5fills8 , 1VIII I .. [ [ (3,78 A0.) • pp uro 699 i ) on )1,,,, 6i 1 A 1 -' — nun r t 1 Am.r) nn tnp • r,.nn•n • mn,r... RFCO6!6!ENo r) FOR APPROVAL C Enoln.Yrin9 W . I DF6," Aw6.L 6" am NE2GH Corporation MAP, 1 OF 6n .•m AEC 6031 .."att OW 6111.1.10 M l.••)6.1.t111 - ...0.I.....• 1n .A,4 , i i 1.•.t•.f.q,t.01..•m,.x.00SItmin" 11,1140•. U..P M Pr • • .. -i••v.nMW.flnwnnMn+1^f•«.M1.u"r,n.f.fV..yarH w.M�V'.o'w"w.M".nnrr.�...r wr.n....w..v.r.....u.r.«rn.v n. .n.. .., ....... 10 T23N R5E W 1/2 1 t�H �,H �1 1 St. I I NE 4th St. cA CA R-io ---, , � , CA CA CA CA R-10 CA f - NE : r -C .: /AAl -� : CA CAi R-10 R-10:(P) : �; - --- - _ W R-g, R-8 . R 10 : ., R-�-8 ITE- R-.10'- - -� ' SE 132nd R-B R-� ' _..:.: = - R-8 - - R-g_�_ E; 1 S. . ; R-8 --------- RMH - 0K;-8i • _ ` - ` 1 ► �'-� I., Eel •-4l2_S RSB �`cs1t `,--. 't1 - CID'. ' . . ...t.,-t 'S--°' 4 - ' . .:` N fThl • I . R-8 �� RMH i R-8? E '‘41Ss�• S -SE 142nd St. .' RC(P) rE 7( , G6 - 22 T23N R5E W 1/2 Y 2313 4yo A ZONING ---- Renton City limits 4:4800 v Y/B✓PW TFCI4N1C�sBnvicEs 15 T23N R5E W 1/2� r_-�o 12/2.8/04 f' SECTION 16 TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH RANGE 6 EAST W.M. r4 If I OWNER/DEVELOPER: —• — — i 1 RIDO[Nfr COAT LAC y -1 CONTACT CUT M1U.Mf �.-Z�— .�M U0,Aa 1X01 1 ND, real-x w1 i # 3i '1 !7°/at 1 74 10/311 33'3'31 h'I /1 i .. AA. C Om,,4-,,,, alwoc a us ;N'.h1s+.' .,rw 1.(ai �Nkto F a',011.1',i"'j15i4Y6,,I, 111111 911{u'.,',i' {„i',' Irl 1;I Ir i'sr )!h,',.:,,,,“,,'111..'-; 1 11 ill°Ir 4x10.I"'..t,F,t,.. REGISTERED ENGINEER' 10y-3 liMl 99llcrni r ?.I kr nl siYrl7iP'r" I�iaP!°.F I'1 d " r�JiYI I k+'�a ! IU f 1 d „•�Yt t „ �. Inn: +ltn +#s�x�x�l'�Cg{�pd•si..1..ww, =. -4 ,oNIACt CNCAlt NC COPIDRAROn I . Ff,'•7 f1�'v�1� ,.T141(N1 CO,R)7'41(j 1.I.L Ivd l I11 Nrl r id i 7 ''. l l v V) '1 1l� r)I 11�}10.74 b.lfu 'y.�, '�� n.. HOWL .CO fic'f� + Yx,' 7 t T '41 t '.1 1 1 { t A'� Tr — av 1..M AK NE fn�`,. YF'IXI �a !+ t d I! Y 1 f¢ ! 1 i.s/ r�7 417 PNOK NONaw,(4.1 Oil-7410 .�h ,1m �l�1�4 �/ "N I nli�lyiY? u r.lrl�ll�` 111' y1 1 a !Sr 1 yy 1�4 v�1v ( \;�F1\,r t1F,f.c 4 r;t l•�17 aA.1ir,�'le > ran .:.. _ A E LAND SURVEYOR _ y I I v}I 1 �: , v 1 1( me��on�n)W�yr. ca. ,N(RCAN ENWNEtR1NC CCAPaARM -.'"‘/‘/‘/S/‘/11/‘,.://‘,/‘` ./‘',/,' :`/`/` /‘,/.‘,/.,t, //\.\. ,' N CONIACI CMT CWMSIENSEN \:,4.4.,131:.' \\\ ,� \\\\ , z •oa wN AA NE 1,‘,/,‘/V‘`,.‘,/ /�\/♦r\\ /�\/\ /� \ /\�\/\/\,.• r 1 •I 1 11 \//\/\/■py\/\/\/ \/♦/\/ ‘/\/‘/::,/// /\/\/� ''�es,'' pZ REDNMDureoft ''\//. / / I /r//r/a /r/ /// /:r/ U N PxaC (425)eel-7410 1 `/ �/ — / —/`r`// '(„E'', ry\/\//\/EN \ 4,,,,/,:/,/,,,/,,s..;// z1 rrraroro /,\ / r/// l , v//// /,/,/\ 8& LEGAL DESCRIPTION (/ 1,74+,`'°"7 \ / •r\/\r\/\ 1!� r /\Tr\r♦/ / \ \ /Y\' PER PACO. OPMvt51 RILE REPORT,ORDER NO / \ /,,,,se,/\• I ////,- / %// soseel DArcD ro A.S.x001 20 ` \\ \ .\\ ,\\y 2 SHE SOON NAAR OF MI EAST NAV OF Ent I / \�\ 1/1///\/ t I r\/♦/\/\ / {.\ r i { 5 NOATNCAfi Or ME NMM,HSI WMiE'R or \ \\\ \\\\ [\ \'�•\j INE NORM W22t OUAPi[P OF f[CTON U, //••//% / ////� {'1! 11 tDWN511P xa NORM,RANG S cost•WM,N ,,,/,/,,, \i/'/\/ `/` 1/rR1w T`:11111:',;;,/:\\,;, • \`r` A' I \i\i`i`i`/`/ /i /\\,\\,\,\ `•/\'`/ RING NOUN I ....aro., \ COC \ \ \\ i' Sr`rRTAR \';,.'/, 'T\ I/ h7."' r/ // ( Ir / //// // / 4.X0 / trCEPt u.L COAL AND N.A.MONTS CONTAINED // / I r/ / /r / T'M YN IN 'BE R T A!ON Of P E CORD AND.0.ASA ( \\\\\\♦ r 4).3,,,:',1,33: \\\\\\ ♦ ♦\ \'`: oenoN Or TRACT. a NAR 74X5 ACRE 1 7• // r/ // / 77 T TRACTS, uN.0211.D PLAT, 7PII l tIttIt+ oi1�l A•I1•r }1+ I 1 QI �I I '1‘'l '.'1',''';'• } r� sswtt�sls 1y )ess��un�ttun Cr..Z CRCCPI NE CAST 1 e rut Cr SAID 1RAC1 I I Y`�LI()IS411 dW(i/I IIII t711.� (•l/Cll'Y4=':.I 1 I)flff`( O/ 7 i1 111 I3/3333,33.33331 {/ x . ,I !1 •�IV i] IIt,1 33''1(',,, I O o E1 1F/5,1'•l iu;��Yvf��+�31 el,33333 `#�9y Sl k� r1�1I I\001 1 tti#,'333333133'3'3,3‘333333qImEsI I ,r 1 1 II I ( �, I I !lag I + 'n y+ r•. "$ BENCH MARK - T .... + I .lb 11 I ��,',',1,''i��., liY :'.1 II 7 Ir i t s o1 .a#t,.l#�1r F Z 3 ION Or GONG NDN DOWN 0l'IN CASE AT INC \r IS P./‘/‘/‘/‘/V \ 1', !...,.r r R •�� W c GONG'NOV O NM or NC 4M Sr(SA 1361m / \\\\• \\\\\\\\\ NI\ \\ \`'/•\\♦ \\\\ MO ■ �guni.rr.a1 (NW COR SEC l6).ELEVAION 0101 it g •\/ 1T \/\/ r IvLEv FPON CItT 01 RMtON CONMOL Mft15, 1. / . , AIj' oNt moa 001.1 Afe rRN.: if i' 1�{m n VERTICAL DATUM C1.y 'IF/ ikira r ':‘,:‘,2„‘ I /\:11.111,x, ib 111111,,;11 �ldd NA.. / It l I \/\ '1 I HORIZONTAL DATUM `/ �� /f 1 I 11 1 1r )a r1'4tet• ,/;,i/yId1� I 1` / ilU'1'1 x11110' 1 Idtlh.i ua,, 1 1 I II 1 + f I` I 1 s is +I I#1 r ` /T:`•�1 IE NAONei/coN stArC PLAN`NoxrW COCi r// id1,Re,(I I /1x1:4; 7141X4.4fid 1I 1 11 I +I1l 1 I I nA 11 h� } 1 r[.y `d i •rr•214Y w 1•!' t I ru Is:ln r ttNtxur`d0# /BUILDING LANDSCAPE TABLE ilk 4y i ,11 IA// t � Iv ' :� Ili, /\i///r/ / ��a� � /`i/1n r ,fT / b i/ � I yl Ir I i/ I Diayy ; i `i)� rl}' vvig / Tl. DUDA 1lELO r LDI vu 6u0.GnG x svxONc A x LAWN / ? `i iI i)I dIr) SAIF(Sr) COVENACE AREA(Sr) AREA IT./\ ® ■ /\ ,1 ;I I iN� \I Au1 SI 1x10 e)k lee°SF @x Y`% / ' ) f I• 1 • 'f�I- rA// LOO Sr 1210 113 1324 v nx \/\\\ /\'''''''';'4S///'\'',`r\r ) ) i ! r 1 /\i`/♦i .'/;\'/::(',:.: ,e91 sr q1O 11k x174ss •Sz '• Ir1.It 1 V 1 /// q• wl sr um lex 1127 5, >sx ''14• x• '•11t• I 4� \\\\\\,\\\\\a\ .\ 1a44 sr 116° lsk tea sr 2fk I/`i i/ +1 1.I d' /,/,,,,,,/\/,/,/,/\/,/ Sen sr ms »x 1x11 v nt / `''//'110/'9 wPPAT." /\/‘/‘ //• /k \u \/\ ('J' ss.//\r / \/ \ /' nu Sr 1000 Si >u /`/ // // PPP��_ ▪ \\\ //// \i\i\ ?; ..�� / i\ f ! we ass 1 I I Sm v 311 me aoa if fax /i/ \ \ , \\ \\ir �/�r` ////\/'/‘'/•/// 111/// ::'/,'/,'///,..i/ i 1011 Sr 1310 lax Use SF 3,3x -__-•. \\� \ ♦\ \ I� \\ 1 ♦\/�\\.\�/\ /r `ice / / �I:, // // // .•.740v1310ak1541SrnxP\ NI, \ ''1: \/\r ( \/yy\i:i y.'n/�'_M,N,\,Nese..r •>41 Sr 1310 Sek 7411 S• a)k r%/ // \\ / /♦ !11• \/\/\/r///// 111'r '\' /`)4140 ST 1x10 3ex 1 q0 Sr a)kf// ` // ` / / N I:\\♦\♦\♦\\\ A +ME .O6a Y 1041 t.x 3x1f W SSx ppl�/ \ // ,N / / r I 113 ,x117 N 1053 35X .1 Sr 11x \� \ '/ \\ /3)35 Sf 66 q 1011 v a1x ! ''/ \/ / \\ 0.4CIA Tl. / `/// III 4 rU / ,•11)x Ii ``%/ / /` / I\ DERNIION I/ // rI• / /,‘...,/ ,,/s/,,/ //• f w J I LLootoAA" N7 ra:4A • \ a wwN,Ra 36W Sr 1110 a4x 1274 SI afx /„./. /// // ///s,/,1/ / // / YI \ \ \ \ \ \ x nos sr 1x10 aox 1q1 sr 4ox {�\ �� ' r W 11',1'''.':;;''/',.:,'''','/.;','11:',.,'.''',!:.•II I 1 91 F}LA� ,1(I NOTE. I ;r �tl"P i(l'ilr$i`tu°.ti hi 1 t fir, ;fid 141 o 1I 11Q/F'i` </ 1I '1141)I 3 it /(/If t 1 p I) j 1Y !g'y DETAILED D LANosc.rt PLANS 6r otNEPs rw `\\ �YlI 117'...... - n�171d=r'RI=\- b( - . ! 1 sI -4...................".: _-! �:VI 7•x41 l+_=•t l 4 I � �P�e1. oEIAxtD LANoscAPNc DESIONM1Arour ii'`r /// r/e 1 :$ Aj III tpJp i 1 •7 s y' v ''11."'•"*''''.' .Nr� (RA itlY j Ntunr.rt =kV Alnarlean tn..... • RbnMr. • SrNererr RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL e .,V•L.��• �� ®ra En01noorin0 •e 1�.4....4 ro 24.... ,_, l Corporation �I .T, o,m__ /'^`^'^R EL 0061 Rm""a''n'a"7�.'rMr•', tL 011'11 SITE PLAN, 1 OF 1 rNONC wn.n-l.w r«(4.11..1-m1 r rn o.m�,- I le'l\'wSS—a4/ AEC X0312 .n OAm�,- ••nnvNee•.Nr.rn..N.opsin... 1 ,w naA.•.m NRIM.UMn..wga.Ms11L1..•x WWN.4.N1.N4AN RIMS ROMan • • N+AL•o.--••Ni ". / oN 1.rfLT .--,..-TAIII 0 .1 T � �•� • ® ®®®®®®®® = } a 6Y 11 G = _ 00000000 =_ Q = — 1 1 _ � FRONT CLCVATION LUT LLCVATION ��.�* 14,07:77:1:z.----- a•'c�� :io»i v .••4.4444441144.“4,41444 •.IN 'I.e. 6OUAR0 1'O07A.56 avow.44141.A1.14 .• •o...�f,v...1.0 MAIN 144 140Te.1. 1141•»...QOM OP SvSRT NORM LOW.. RSB TO 65 AT OKAPI!Pelf ORADIN6 PLAN TOTALS J.ROOFS TO S5 1.17 0R LOVMR 0ARA0E 420 Z 5.NO M5CNANICAl COUI MONT OR 0TNe*6TRUCTU1f56 To 611 ON TO.BOOP .. A,ROOF COLOR TO 65 WONT TO 1415,55.41415,55.4&RCI .. ut W W1^^ Ol.506TION 6NINOL56 O (1 p C 5.140U$5 COLOR.COLORIMAMOR Of S.V•IIT5 TRIM m WITH 55165.6Y.ALMOND,OR 6665 SOOT 1 InQL/ iii Z v 0 _4 pet�U t4- --_ -__.- _ --- _-_ ... - -_V'Si5J4.PQR r 1.1 — iPCY524QD m .rte -- __ — ___...m=41,1,= =n______In_____ _ 1 t, ==ool=.1 lo=ti_. ; _ n ____El..-. .---- - u _I oo:oo.00 Ommi __ __ N.Rw.Ur.•w pi,-li144.16/11 �___ Nboaw_...4. ......„, ,..,,.. . ......................... .............................. ........______--- -- --.'"."‘"...."..'"..."".."7'. lii=H .1,1 =il I 1=17 r......._ 1, .=. ...._ _._•_ I C6] I 61H_v.,, ..„ COT • RCAR CLCVATION RI(5.+-IT CL=VAT ION O. A2 •56 ofMRAL wens •SACS.w•.10. NM•6N•RAL NOT•6 sCAL•,v+ .r.a. THIS PLAN TO 00 ON LOTS '3,6,155 PEE, • (-' ( • ,.- -._.... . --- - 1 ( . • ...v.I :,...4„:,.4.5..,...MF.,WINK„ --- •011111•10•1101111. 2,7,t::::,=" /.� ',1111111111111111511111•. . As,'��►�..Is-puimulpi►. I:.i. ..sooty —- ■��a �� a ®� _ _ — — — — — — — — ... _....._.. __- ,"...,...Ry .IN.NM,uF.Sw wLR_y'FS� - i -- -_-- _ -_. 1 r..IN�Loo.. \ru.,N.L??,..�. - -- .. .�...__'__•�- -- -- - -- -,' i="-, s •:0 Q i i gl _ L. �; •rN� I44, 13 1 Pf'CONT ML,e'VATION Rlbi-IT =LL\/ATION 1 I .....44.F.I.None **AL.I/4 .lb. co..,wl{,,�l�,a4owN'..,.N.al. SCUARc_•OOtAG0S ..N..,.1.70755 .e.u.in, •••,.• N075,I. INI.M FLOOR 0,UVURY NOMO ^-�'•41.IGAT0441 MAIN 913 ••• I O TO De AT 6RA0!wen•RAOINSr FLAN UF•1.6R 56* 3,50051.70 D!703 OR LOWDR TOTAL -Mir S.NO MUC.MAN10AL DOUIFMDNT OR GARA&L' 620 0TMGR STRUGMUS TO DO ON TMC ROOF 4.ROOF 004..05 70 ME WONT 70 M1101..IM.Rey •-+ W GOMROSTION SNIN.Lp. • L ,, S.NOL/1.5 GOLOR.YMI17.OR OFF.WNITS TRIM Q .171..155105.01•10.,01•10.,ALMN , OD.OR 0A011 MOM( • 5. zmQ —-_ __—. _—--—-- --—___ -JAMXI lyQpD FJV' 8^+-. _ /_ - _ NQ � mU_ =I o _ j o Ci_ FIN.R4.Y�,w [...Las, n. - -- 00 Oo 00 W.A. ar.r,l,+ w.w'-'2"...= ,.p0,{ 1. :LE.-- -yyy -_ __ _ tr.'. 0000aoaa __ - �, = ❑anaaoan ==1 -- - mimmimmilmmun = NFL0N .44 *I.12Is7 • REAR CLLDMATION LMPT CLmVATION cN• l'1.2 .,S.SNSRM.NC7S. ,GALS,/0.P.p• ..S.5445Rµ4407♦0 .004.5,V. .4..4 0 THIS I•PLAN TO 60 ON LOTS 2 4 20 • ) 61 101 NO 09 Ol N`d 1• 51111 .1.••••,•,••••••,•,•• .0111•01.4 TV.1R1...N T .0,•.M'.4.'N 4011.04 44•40,1444.N .o..•. G.. =IC, N011b/ -IM 1.121 NOIlb//\Q-1.21 'a1`v RIti1 V \ nn..ry n _- 1.11.i.+w•��. -___ i U U U U U U U I_1 4 4 ❑EDDODOO _ 00:1000012] NINsan Ni.ICI . .5.00.. ..I.,. ✓✓✓ �(y •'1T71dov997i11-i-__ __ __ __ __ __ __-____ __ _ 9aiLT-_ rnr m 0z11<rn D O 1N1,`1 ..00A a'vw 110'01•40011.•.....11114)aria.P1554 V W A •.. s.ass.-r0 It/.0 a111M-a.o ~O.'c r71-, �,\1 .Y1sN1N.NO111O.IWO9 .haus NMOi4 Ol SHAH p1 OS 110100 MOO-'. rn . ... _...__. _ -_ rOor sO lANIANAK/NO illa roa 1�1N INOSINP ON A o ''9VAYq fMf1 1701 0 C1'1.as Os 41001.1•C TI1Gl WW1/.NIOYLs 111 10Y10.lY as OS VG Is a1aJJ(1 ANON MIN• 0la 1/ o.1011N A'1'alON 009 NIYW • 1.N •11.1 "VIM... aN 1. w.NY1 .11 . 00900.11Yl1D11 .0.,1•.1v1'.1r•. 1141.“.1NN . 1.-.N..nee ••••,.. ...n•.NOIld/\.21 ` -1.2 11.191a1 N011VA.Z'12 1N011.1 I [71 Utiin -. gr $ p ms's. . .yl =--- -- ..a- =...I■■.- .pJ 0y \ _- _ �_-- -_-----_---_- -- _- - __ i •, - :- il��1.: — 11111 - yy �Nz .....,.6. ...wm.•n. IG_ iiui.�l.�riinl III I nal .I / -I1. .1 / o �. +n. > . - .. • .� _al .... 111 �•I'T-d.1.'9.TA--- - -- -- -- ----------- -- -- f f TA- AN4.91.1.L 1.1.L 1.• ..-- "...11111111111P- ,11111111, • aal.' • 44100 A': { O CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL p� AI#: 0 ° C ikiwi :Submitting Data: For Agenda of 3/21/2005 Dept/Div/Board.. AJLS/City Clerk Staff Contact Bonnie Walton, x6502 Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing... X Street Vacation Petition;portion of unimproved road Correspondence.. (walkway)between NW 6th St. and Rainier Ave. N. Ordinance (Petitioner: Jack D. Alhadeff, File No. VAC-05-002) Resolution X Old Business Exhibits: New Business Petition, legal and map Study Sessions Resolution setting public hearing Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Set public hearing date of 4/18/2005, and refer to Legal Dept X Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator for Finance Dept recommendations Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... N/A Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: On January 26, 2005, a petition was submitted by Jack D. Alhadeff, 95 S. Tobin St., #201, Renton, 98055, requesting vacation of a 10' walkway, approximately 187 feet in length located between NW 6th St. and Rainier Ave.N. The Planning/Building/Public Works Department has verified the petition documents and reports that 100% of the abutting property owners have signed the petition. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution to set a public hearing on 4/18/2005, and refer the petition to the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator for determination of advisability of the vacation and need for retention of easements. cc Karen McFarland Reference: 35.79 RCW&RMC 9-14 VR-05-0062 CITY OF RENTON PES_ACION FOR STREET VACATI614 IN THE CITY OF RENTON JAN 2 6 2005 /=.b, RECEIVED To the Honorable Mayor and Date I `26 - o S CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Members of the City Council City of Renton Circulated By: 0. n kLije4 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Address: s S. To K 2C.0/ Dear Mayor and Council Members: Telephone: /IS' g5.'/ —/O 0 We,the undersigned property owners abutting a certain portion of public Right-of-Way, respectfully request the vacation of the street or alleyway as described on the attached "Exhibit A"and Platted walkkial connecting NW 6th Street to Rainier Avenue commonly known as: Plat of Woody Glen Addition. Vol. 47, page 91.- 92. (Insert closest cross streets and reference the street name,i.e.NE Bog Street from Bicycle Alley to Slalom Avenue NE.) We request a time and place be fixed when this petition will be heard by the City Council. Of the property owners abutting the area of this petition /°0 % [2/3 or more required]of the lin,.1 frontage have agreed and indicated their joiningi.,is petition with their signatures b o : • .ignature [/ ^ •gnature Nome o•a.� L J 81 f ct._,& ID. /4 (Li, ,:c7C /oo print name C phone t /0.02.... print name phone 4'3' �1 T-<.L+ J 4 r�- P t-f' 'k_e__ address0-b�'0 address g V10%°°1 956480-0106-05 5115 95(��4 95480-0007-05 property identification number property identification number Instructions: 1. Insert name of street. (i.e.NE 4th, alleyway east of Sunset Blvd.) 2. Attach complete legal description(i.e.metes and bounds, etc.) 3. Have the applicable property owners provide the following: a) Sign name. (Signatures of owners of 2/3••of lineal frontage must sign. Spouses do not need to sign. Owners in common must sign.) b) Print name and phone number. c) List Property address and King County tax parcel identification number. 4. Attach a map to the petition designating the vacation boundaries. 5. Attach a brief statement of the purpose to be served by the street vacation. 6. Submit$250.00 filing fee with application. SUBMIT PETITION TO THE CITY CLERK, SEVENTH FLOOR,RENTON CITY HALL. H:�File Sys\PRM-Property Services Administration\Administrative\Forms\Street Vacation Petition.doc EXHIBIT A 444r.•v LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT PORTION OF PLATTED WALKWAY LYING BETWEEN LOT 7, BLOCK 2, AND LOT 8, BLOCK 3 IN WOODY GLEN ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 47 OF PLATS, PAGES 91 AND 92, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. • K\Survey\Yr_2003\203615\615 LEGAL041203.doc MAP EXHIBIT OG�GF'� �oO�� , Q P JO g1 LOT 7, BLOCK 2 WOODY GLEN ADDITION VOL. 47, PAGE 91 & 92 NW 6TH ST 10• WA LKWAY P ER PLAT 411.00eW�D�CEIV =DITTO O BE:"".' VAC LOT 8, BLOCK 3 WOODY GLEN ADDITION � VOL. 47, PAGE 91 & 92 'e,\' V.9 POS NHICO CONJUNCTS VACATION ION WITHS NTHEG SHOR REQUESTEDOG�-�' G� PLAT LUA-04-139 BEING REVIEWED O BY THE CITY OF RENTON. AcG•e GRAPHIC SCALE 50 0 25 50 100 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 50 ft. 01/27/05 08:50 FAX 2533832572 AHBL TACOMA Z002 Alhadeff Pedestrian Walkway R/W Vacation Request: Statement of Purpose: The applicant requests theCity of Renton de sac to the eastern boundary land of the the terminus of the NW 6th Street cu proposed 6th Street Short Plat. The purpose of the vacation is to allow future development of the adjacent parcels. The R/W was originally intended for a pedestrian walkway but has remained undeveloped for over 50 years due to steep slopes and lack of connectivity. CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, SETTING A HEARING DATE TO VACATE A 10' WIDE PLATTED WALKWAY APPROXIMATELY 187' IN LENGTH, CONNECTING NW 6TH STREET TO RAINIER AVENUE (JACK D. ALHADEFF — JDA GROUP; VAC-05-002). WHEREAS, a Petition has been filed with the City Clerk of the City of Renton on January 26, 2005, pursuant to the requirements of RCW 35.79, petitioning for the vacation of a 10' wide platted walkway approximately 187' in length, connecting NW 6th Street to Rainier Avenue, as hereinafter more particularly described, and the petition having been signed by the owners of more than two-thirds (2/3) of the property abutting upon the street portion sought to be vacated, and described as follows: See Exhibit"A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein Ntio (10' wide platted walkway approximately 187' in length, connecting NW 6th Street to Rainier Avenue). NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION L That April 18, 2005, at the hour of 7:30 P.M. at the City Council Chambers at City Hall, Renton, King County, Washington, is hereby fixed as the time and place for a public hearing to consider the Petition for vacating a 10' wide platted walkway approximately 187' in length, connecting NW 6th Street to Rainier Avenue, which hearing date is not more than sixty nor less than twenty days from the date of passage of this Resolution. SECTION IL The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to give notice of the time and date of this hearing as provided in RCW 35.79.020 and any and/or all persons 1 RESOLUTION NO. interested therein or objecting to this vacation may then appear and be heard, or they may file None their written objections with the City Clerk at or prior to the time of hearing on this vacation. SECTION IIL The City Council shall determine, as provided in RCW 35.79.030, as to whether an appraisal shall be secured to determine the fair market value of the property sought to be vacated as provided for in Ordinance No. 4266, and the amount of compensation to be paid by the Petitioner-Owners to the City for this vacation. The City likewise reserves the right to retain an easement for public utility and related purposes. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2005. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk 40000. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2005. Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.1098:3/8/05 2 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL ssii ( AIN: � •�1. Submitting Data: For Agenda of: 3/21/05 Dept/Div/Board.. Community Services/Recreation Staff Contact Sylvia Allen (ext. 6609) Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Adoption of Ordinance to Increase Henry Moses Correspondence.. Aquatic Center Fees Ordinance X Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Issue Paper Study Sessions Proposed Ordinance Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Council concur Legal Dept x.... Finance Dept..x... Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated $5,000 Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Some fees at the Henry Moses Aquatic Center are scheduled to increase due to new benefits to the facility: new season pass gate, additional furniture in the outdoor seating area, additional canopy tent for rental, and a new all-inclusive facility rental. The new rates and increased fees are competitive with similar water park type facilities in the area, and allow Henry Moses Aquatic Center to continue to provide a quality facility while covering the costs of services. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of rate increases and adoption of ordinance. 2005-064aa MEMORANDUM err CITY OF RENTON COMMUNITY SERVICES 0 Committed to Enriching Lives 0 TO: Terri Briere, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: �(,, Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor FROM: Dennis Culp, Community Services Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Sylvia Allen, Recreation Director(x6609).)y / SUBJECT: Henry Moses Aquatic Center Fee Increases DATE: March 14, 2005 Issue: Approval of ordinance setting Henry Moses Aquatic Center fees. Recommendation: Council approve the proposed fee schedule ordinance setting fees at Henry Moses Aquatic Center. Background: Fees changes are recommended to correspond with new or improved benefits and services. The new fees and increased fees are competitive with similar water park facilities in the area. • Season passes are priced at 12 visits instead of 10. Season pass holders will also be guaranteed admission. In addition, a new season pass gate has been constructed that will provide season pass holders an express entrance, while decreasing congestion at the main gate for both daily users and season pass holders. lorry 2005-064aa Terri Briere, Council President March 14,2005 Page 2 of 2 *weSeason Pass Fee Proposal 2004 RATES 2005 PROPOSED RATES Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident Ages 5 to 12 yrs $40 $60 $48 $72 Ages 13-17 $50 $80 $60 $96 Adult $60 $120 $72 $144 Senior(55 & up) $50 $60 $60 $72 Lap swim only $30 $40 $36 $48 Family $140 $240 $168 $288 • Another canopy tent has been added for the 2005 season. Rental of the canopy will include admission fees, thus eliminating the need for standing in line to purchase admission tickets. The 10 x 20 tent rental will include up to 25 admission passes, the 10 x 10 tent will include up to 15 admission passes. • Family season passes will be priced for a group of four, of which one must be an adult. Additional family members may be added for$25 each. • A new all-inclusive rental of the facility will be offered for$995 (2-hour rental). Price includes a full complement of lifeguards, minimal administrative/guest services staff, and 15% overhead costs. Groups will be limited to a maximum of 500 people. Conclusion: Approving the ordinance to set new fees and increase existing fees will allow Henry Moses Aquatic Center to provide its citizens with a quality facility, while covering the costs of services. cc: Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer Mike Wilson, Interim Finance/IS Administrator 2005-064aa CITY OF RENTON,WASHINGTON __ ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 5-1, FEE SCHEDULE, OF TITLE V (FINANCE AND BUSINESS REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON" BY SETTING AQUATIC CENTER PASS CARD RATES AND CANOPY RENTAL FEES. WHEREAS,the City of Renton wishes to provide to its citizens the most cost effective services possible; and WHEREAS,the City Council has adopted a policy that the Aquatic Center Admission fees shall cover the costs of services; NOW THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: . r SECTION L Section 5-1-7 of Chapter 5-1, Fee Schedule, of Title V(Finance and Business Regulations)of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington"is hereby amended to read as follows: 5-1-7: AQUATIC CENTER ADMISSION FEES: Admission for the Aquatic Center shall be as follows: Resident Children 4 and younger Free Non-resident Children 4 and younger Free DAY USE SEASON PASS Resident Youth 5-12 $4.00 $48.00 Non-resident Youth 5-12 $6.00 $72.00 Resident Teen 13-17 $5.00 $60.00 Non-resident Teen 13-17 $8.00 $96.00 1 ORDINANCE NO. Resident Adult $6.00 $72.00 Non-resident Adult $12.00 $144.00 Resident Senior $5.00 $60.00 Non-resident Senior $6.00 $72.00 Resident Lap Swim Only $3.00 $36.00 Non-resident Lap Swim Only $4.00 $48.00 Resident Family Rate* n/a $168.00 Non-resident Family Rate* n/a $288.00 *A family is defined as a group of four of which at least one, but not more than two, are adults. The family season pass card rate is based on a family of four persons. A flat rate of$25 will be charged for each additional family member. All persons must reside at the same address. Group Rates—for groups of 10 or more: Resident Rates: $5.00 per person Non-Resident Rates: $8.00 per person. Staff has the authority to offer discounted daily rates for partial sessions or Renton-only events. Nose Locker Rental $0.25 Resident Swimming Lessons, per session $40.00 Non-resident Swimming Lessons, per session $48.00 Canopy Rental Fees(includes canopy and admission for one leisure swim session): Henry Moses Party Tent#1 (10' x 20' for up to 25 guests): Resident Rate,per session $150.00 Non-resident Rate, per session $180.00 Henry Moses Party Tent#2 (10' x 10' for up to 15 guests): Resident Rate: $100.00 Non-resident Rate: $120.00 All-Inclusive Rentals: $995 for a 2-hour rental 2 ORDINANCE NO. SECTIQN II. This ordinance shall be effective on its passage, approval, and 30 `6s1"" days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2005. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2005. Kathy Keolker-Wheeler,Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1168:2/14/05:ma 3 e CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI N: c e. Submitting Data: Community Services For Agenda of: 3/21/05 Dept/Div/Board.. Parks Division Staff Contact Leslie Betlach (ext. 6619) Agenda Status Bill Rasmussen (ext. 6617) Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Heather Downs Park Development - Award of Correspondence.. Contract for Design Phase to J.A. Brennan Associates Ordinance Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Issue Paper Study Sessions J.A. Brennan Associates Proposal Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Council Concur Legal Dept Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: kkille Expenditure Required... $167,148.00 Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted $187,500.00 Revenue Generated Total Project Budget $1,250,000.00 City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: A Statement of Qualifications was published for master planning and architectural engineering services for development of a 9.18-acre park. From the seventeen submittals received, four firms were selected for interviews. J.A. Brennan Associates received the highest rating based on the interview criteria. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Award contract for architectural design services for the Heather Downs Park Development to J.A. Brennan Associates and authorize Mayor and City Clerk to sign the contract. 2005-057aa MEMORANDUM err. '' CITY OF RENTON COMMUNITY SERVICES 0 Committed to Enriching Lives 0 TO: Terri Briere, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor FROM: Dennis Culp, Community Services Administrat r ��^J Leslie Betlach, Parks Director(ext. 6619 STAFF CONTACT: Bill Rasmussen, Capital Project Coordinator (ext. 6617) SUBJECT: Heather Downs Park Development Project—Award of Contract to J.A. Brennan Associates ` we DATE: March 7, 2005 Issue: Should the Council award a contract in the amount of$167,148 for master planning and architectural design services for the Heather Downs Park Development Project to J.A. Brennan Associates? Recommendation: Council award the contract to J.A. Brennan Associates and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the contract. Background: A Statement of Qualifications was published for master planning and architectural/design services for development of Heather Downs Park, a 9.18-acre park located at 233 Union Avenue SE, Renton, WA. From the seventeen submittals received, four firms were selected for interviews. The four firms were interviewed and evaluated using the following criteria: team experience in park projects, team experience in neighborhood facilities, working with multiple concerns, knowledge of project site, and process used to accomplish the site survey, public meetings, park 2005-058aa Terri Briere,Council President March 14,2005 Page 2 of 2 concept, adopted plan, and construction documents. J.A. Brennan Associates received the highest rating based on the interview criteria. J.A. Brennan Associates will hold three public meetings, provide presentation materials, and develop a Master Plan to be adopted by the Council. Once the Master Plan is adopted, J.A. Brennan Associates will develop construction documents and specifications for public bid. Once construction commences, J.A. Brennan will assist in weekly inspections. Conclusion: J.A. Brennan should be awarded the contract in the amount of$167,148.00 for architectural design services for Heather Downs Park Development Project. c: Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer Nifty' 2005-05Saa • January 12,2005 j.a. Brennan associates PtLc Bill Rasmussen Community Services Depaittnent City of Renton,City Hall—5th Floor 1055 S. Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Dear Bill: J.A. Brennan Associates,PLLC is pleased to present our team's qualifications to provide park master planning and design implementation services for the Heather Downs Park project. We welcome the opportunity to assist in the master planning of this exciting neighborhood park project that will provide social and recreation opportunities for residents. We believe that by working together with you and the public,we will develop a master plan for a park that meets your vision for this public space. The park's recreational opportunities will create a healthy,life- sustaining place for residents and visitors. - Planning and Design Experience J.A.Brennan Associates has extensive experience-in developing master plans for public parks. We understand the public participation process and enjoy working collaboratively to develop feasible master plans,supported by accurate cost estimates. Our design services include:master planning,public involvement facilitation,park programming, final design,construction documents, cost estimating,and construction administration for the development of parks, sports fields,playgrounds,trail systems,and habitat'restoration and enhancement. As planners and landscape architects,we combine our knowledge of natural systems with our expertise in designing recreational park features to create special places for people. Among our examples of public park master plans with passive and active recreation elements are the North Ambaum Park and Mathison Park Conceptual Plans in Burien,the Scriber Lake Master Plan in Lynnwood,the Sumas Ball Fields Master Plan in Sumas,and the Bitter rri Lake Open Space Development Plan in Seattle. Exceptional Plans and Specifications We have the ability to bring projects from conceptual design all the way to detail plans, specifications, and cost E estimates. We are familiar with CS1 and APWA specification formats. Our construction document drafting abilities are of high quality,both CAD and manual, and we have an extensive base of standard details as well as co 0 o c the ability to create custom site details that respond to micro-site conditions. Our capabilities include AutoCAD W 2002 and LandCAD. Our thorough analysis and construction administration experience prevents the surprise of hidden costs. N u Project Team Jim Brennan will serve as principal-in-charge,project manager and primary contact for the team. MAKERS o N Architecture+Urban Design will provide architectural design services. KPFF will provide civil engineering services and Shannon&Wilson will provide geotechnical engineering services, as needed. Availability J.A. Brennan Associates is actively seeking project opportunities and is able to begin project coordination immediately. The firm has an enviable record for completing projects to the full satisfaction of clients and team members. We are confident that the J.A.Brennan Team can provide excellent consultant services for the Heather Downs project. Thank you for your time in reviewing the following submittal. We look forward to talking with you in the near future. Sincerely, J.A.Brenn.. •ssoci test PLLC U +�+► Jame • . rennan,A LA Pri• ipal „ ,,,, .„, City of Renton .... Community Services Department - ` Heather Downs Park January 12, 2005 - sa ”" w Othis A Neighborhood parks enrich and enhance quality of life for residents, providing opportunities to enjoy healthy activities and the outdoor environment. I . . "4 IN* / 'f 4 r { 4 , 41 4 ---4---_,T _ 1 la. brennan 4 associates ruc Contents Nitiy Contents Project Understanding 1 Firm Backgrounds 2 Team Chart 3 Team Expertise 5 Preferred Process 9 Project Examples 13 Resumes 22 Summary 32 j.a.brennan associates,plic Introduction Project Understanding `' w J.A. Brennan believes that recreational activities Neighborhood parks improve the mental and physical health of provide opportunities for.. communities. Active recreation opportunities , ...healthy outdoor activities, social provide youth and adults opportunities, sports activities, picnicking, chances to be challenged, to gain new skills,to gathering, exploring, strolling, and playing. socialize, and to expend energy. These places can also bring joy to adults. A well-designed park will have connections between By adding accessible, the activity zones and integrate amenities such as picnic passive park elements areas and seating. These features will help express the the needs of elderly or character of this neighborhood. By selecting appropriate disabled neighbors can and accessible play amenities and creating connections also be addressed. to the surrounding neighborhood,the park will bring new energy and safe play to the neighborhood and create more Developing Heather Downs Park creates opportunities for proximate recreation opportunities than Kiwanis Park. residents of the Leisure Estates neighborhood to participate in healthy outdoor activities. This park will be a place The J.A. Brennan team will develop a master plan and to play and to gather. Residents of this multi-family and cost estimates for a feasible design that moves the City single family dwelling neighborhood will have a green forward towards implementation of this park. We will Nitre space that allows for play,exploration,and discovery. review existing data including the wetland reconnaissance (by others) and provide valuable input about site Potential park elements include a ball field, soccer conditions and development potential. By working with field overlay, and play area. Other active recreation the City, Park Board, and community,we will design a opportunities can be explored, such as a basketball park that meets the community's needs. court. Neighborhood park elements, such as a restroom, picnic tables,benches, and an accessible path system for Places where people gather to recreate are places that strolling will help define the new park and satisfy the provide meaning and sustenance in life, improving the area's need for public open space. The new park will be mental and physical health of the community. J.A. a place to safely celebrate community in a neighborhood Brennan believes that well-designed public spaces help setting. The master plan will respond to the requirement communities develop a strong sense of place. We will that the northwest corner remain available for future water work with you to develop your vision for this special place. tower development. , fir- = �" #000- j.a.brennan associates,pllc 1 The Team The Team J.A. Brennan Associates, PLLC, Landscape Architects Jim Brennan,Project Manager J.A. Brennan Associates, landscape architects and Jim Brennan,Landscape Architect,will serve as project planners, has served U.S. and Asian clients in planning and manager. Jim is a Registered Landscape Architect,with design since 1988. J.A. Brennan's office is located in the a degree in landscape architecture from the University historic Pioneer Square District of Seattle. The firm's six of Washington. His 20 years of experience include professionals meet client requirements in many different award winning open space design,neighborhood park capacities. We offer distinctive master planning services design, circulation systems,and athletic field design. for neighborhood and community parks, athletic fields, Jim's neighborhood park design projects include the and pedestrian and bicycle circulation systems. City of Burien's North Ambaum and Mathison Parks, Site inventory and analysis, land use planning, Groundswell NW's Webster Park,The City of Seattle's environmental support,public involvement, feasibility Bitter Lake Reservoir Open Space Project, and the City analysis, schematic and final design, circulation system of Bothell's Cedar Grove Park. Recent master planning planning,cost estimating, and construction documents are experience includes City of Bellingham's Squalicum among our team's general professional qualifications. The Fields Master Plan, the City of Langley's Boat Harbor and combination of our experience in open space planning, Environs Master Plan,the City of Lynnwood's Scriber neighborhood park design, and sustainable design makes Lake Park Master Plan and the City of Sumas'Ball Fields J.A. Brennan uniquely qualified to complete the design Master Plan. and implementation of Heather Downs Park. Drew Coombs,Landscape Designer Integrity, imagination, and creative interaction between Drew Coombs, landscape designer, is responsible for client and consultant are factors in our approach to a diverse range of landscape architectural design and project development. This approach, combined with a planning projects. Drew has a Bachelor of Landscape commitment to conservation and restoration, leads J.A. Architecture degree from the University of British Brennan to the completion of successful projects of all Columbia in Vancouver,B.C. Drew's project experience sizes. We work with our clients to create people places includes the design details for trails and parks. His that respect the community's diversity and the landscape. responsibilities at J.A. Brennan include specification Our expertise in public involvement and our ability to writing,cost-estimating, construction documents, enhance environmentally sensitive or under-utilized areas coordinating team meetings, CAD,and graphics results in successful park projects. production. Drew recently completed design work on the City of Bellingham's Squalicum Fields and City of Sumas' J.A. Brennan Associates'Philosophy Ball Fields Master Planning projects. J.A. Brennan provides the highest level of service to meet our client's needs. We listen to our clients, responding to needs and meeting demanding time frames and other . ; , project constraints. We integrate our team members' Brennan s Whe Center :� Sports Park Project work in a collaborative approach, incorporating review .r. i, and design input,to ensure that the final product meets t regulatory standards. Drawing on our technical expertise, ;< fi we achieve the most suitable product for our client. By aik working collaboratively with our client, we achieve project goals and meet client expectations. 4i J.A. Brennan has chosen key personnel who have the experience and qualifications needed to successfully complete this project. As designers of complex projects, we are adept at leading multi-disciplinary teams. 2 j.a.brennan associates,plic • The Team Heather Downs Park Team 444.0, aa�-+v .t. . ''on �r 4R , m�'ror r4 v ,CityRentoCommunity Services Department ' ' - ; g ' "�"'s s .y t4,, * " t „ y�. +rrs . l` gcru "o s ; - '''.4.-,' --,- , " N - •tie t ' t ti ? t - ' "ai� c . a, r ;'' k1. yf s Proeca a er t & s :,,,.,,,,f4,,,, LI� ;,mo ,.�sea, Z, arz "i -' ,h Wee iyti IS, Stakeholders �s q0 d ry � g 1 � ,-- - :, •�. „� ,'�, to ate .-:*,. .'*--i'7'.- �a xj y',� �.t s ��. Park Boas • J.A.Brennan Associates Ya, � , �' Landscape Architects and Planners °�� Neighborhood g z� � � � 'F « ' �� n� .,::•---_,:,7:'''.: :'; 'W-14�.' • „+ 'T ;y'. :-47.:4, 4,4.-"e,:1,-' +` w 'fig- ' 47z t5 Fit4,.,:c4, -.45t. >' �"x CdyCroup 4{ '' r. z' l e$4 `I1 r nn• �`�-fi j,. `'i'-'`,� �k"" ift � ��,4 } n �a ,�.Cha a `�` �r�4 " ..�, ,� E: � . ,�,- . t" ur?'"e . -a"�t- .s,S �,-. "� a y �x�E .,x y` an� .:. i 4i r/*' °� iA A ..4 't= a ft -� v 0i Pai* ign, r.na ram ng, :4 �z a s t'S 3- :k -1 �" �sF., i g.3 '`` ` L'�(►J GIBh,L,,,,,,-. 3•',1,;4:-,,' ... > '�-� ,6`�pi i ', ter ,',= ;,i4.7.--:'..I'''7.,.. .,,,' , • ' S ati m F P 4 .,j ' e t4* r,a> 't >"• '1 7,:',Y Sze t. ' g it s `.3` [ �, . .s- D oft te m","S'a,��`,ftrs .' Sg 'e"' �. "Te? y t f� �,e7 a' E � _ j` y �3 �'i Fy --N L nds rra, iesi9�ie €',. - st' `a -' 0, 'yfiiltipt -� , 3'' :'" �` � 'Af s � �) ''^"'� K St' � �'"+ - �S. *tri "' ,�a4�`aA°�t",aa . t -tt�C$ ''� ,� :3 ,.�. i " ; j oi►S rtich mei ,fi, � '„e 3° 5 Tana Wlci ifi a hilted :} 'Passive Recreation Planing' y'Specifications '. �.j' `�^.,�.,,"s,. • � ' ¢ ' ;.0-:.;-,4„2, -- EWi MAKERS ,,..--0::-..74,,%-..��h 041.r ,z: KPFF ,V ,, Architecture and PlanningShannon and Wilson a t1 "'' g ,tz •A� ', ^ ' i -kMs . � Yt: : aer,„,* a,;, ',*�k:".'''„. ;5';.: ,.2''''' ^ g, 5i �5> Bill p d ,L . AI '� ' � t �-O ' y - l' •� GC �CcIntca n gym f"' �-w � ' w ,A .PS !µer l t ,r_ OI � VKe ► 'mar4 'f ROI s ,E .d ►C1 '� a + '�' x�vJv f -- E + 5 „ S ` � ^ .� ` ad �u� -a� i. ' t •� „ � ",#, ,.. . yIk_ , -� '.'''''''1' '` f ..vaY ,r a ,t Afly :v •Subconsultants KPFF, Civil Engineering Services David Schwartz, Civil Engineer We have included KPFF on our team to assist with civil David Schwartz,PE,LEEDTM AP, Civil Project Manager, engineering tasks. Founded in 1960,KPFF Consulting has 22 years of experience in planning, designing,and Engineers is one of the largest civil and structural coordinating site developments,and public improvements. engineering firms on the West Coast. KPFF successfully He specializes in site development for parks,trails, and leverages the resources of the firm while maintaining other recreational facilities. He has managed a variety of the personal contact the firm views as essential. KPFF'' projects for both public and private clients in local, state, civil •engineers offer complete services including site and federal jurisdictions. He is experienced designing evaluation,master planning, design,and construction stormwater, drainage and water quality systems; street, support,and collaborating with architects and landscape curb, and pedestrian improvements; and utility systems, architects to deliver exceptional projects. including sanitary sewer, and domestic water systems. j.a. brennan associates,pllc 3 The Team MAKERS Founded in 1972,MAKERS has planned and designed We are designers of parks that' numerous park/recreational facilities in a variety of settings ranging from downtown parks to waterfront sites connect people to place and and natural sites. Because of our urban design orientation, we view parks and recreational facilities as more than create life-sustaining, safe, single-purpose recreational amenities. Our park and recreational facility projects typically: and healthy opportunities for • Combine a broad range of activities and serve a variety of users. recreational activities. • Play an important role in upgrading the local community and accomplishing civic revitalization objectives. Shannon and Wilson • Enhance the special character of the site and Since 1954 Shannon&Wilson,Inc.has been providing creatively explore the special design opportunities geotechnical engineering and environmental consulting inherent in each situation. from its Seattle office. The firm employs around 100 • Plan strategically to effectively use available professionals locally,including geotechnical engineers, funding and deal with long-term operations and geologists, seismic experts,hydrogeologists,natural maintenance issues. resources and environmental scientists and engineers. Shannon&Wilson has been working area parks and recreation departments since the 1960s, on a variety of projects and sites state-wide. From five decades of local reconnaissance and exploration, Shannon &Wilson has a keen understanding of the subsurface conditions throughout the Puget Sound region. With pre-existing information in an in-house library and project files, Shannon &Wilson has information to provide initial insight into the geologic conditions and the geotechnical issues involved in this project. This knowledge provides the firm an ability to approach this project with a thorough understanding of both the project conditions and the City of Renton's expectations. J.A.Brennan developed a master plan for Donkey Creek Park in Gig Harbor. MAKERS designed the restroom and picnic shelter structures. William Laprade, Licensed Engineering Geologist Bill Laprade is a licensed engineering geologist in Washington with 31 years'experience. He has spent his Eric Anderson,Architect entire professional career with Shannon&Wilson,where he is presently a vice president and manages a technical group Eric Anderson will provide technical and production of geologists and geotechnical engineers. Through his work support and will serve as designer of the architectural on large public works projects in glacial soils in the Seattle elements on the project.As a lead architect at MAKERS, area,Bill has become one of the leading experts in glacial Eric has designed over 20 shelters and support buildings history,distribution of glacial deposits,and the behavior of for park districts throughout the Northwest. Eric glacial soils in the Puget Sound region. His publication, specializes in small scale parks structures and is very "The Geology of Seattle,Washington,"co-authored with knowledgeable regarding low maintenance design. He has Dick Galster,has been a staple for the understanding of the designed picnic shelters and service buildings for parks in engineering geology and engineering properties of Puget Skamokawa,Des Moines,Bremerton, La Conner, Seattle, Lowland soils since its publication in 1991. Olympia,Port Angeles, and Port Townsend,Washington. 4 j.a.brennan associates,pllc Expertise Team Expertise Neighborhood Park Planning and Design The Public Involvement Process J.A. Brennan's expertise includes the design and Public agencies represent the majority of J.A.Brennan's implementation of both passive and active park programs, clients. As a result,most of our projects include with a focus on working in sensitive environments. The involvement with community groups, stakeholders, and J.A. Brennan team has a depth of experience in the steering committees. This background has allowed us to development of master plans for neighborhood parks develop excellent communication skills and negotiation similar to Heather Downs Park. experience. We are experienced listeners, interested in responding to the community and stakeholders with Our methodology includes site inventory and analysis appropriate design development. to document the character of the site and sensitive areas, along with development of an issues and opportunities Many of our past park master planning projects have plan that documents the site's potentials and constraints. required assisting clients with the development of a public Our expertise lies in working with you to develop a involvement plan. We believe it is critical to solicit input design program for recreational facilities and landscape early in the programming and design process, to ensure development. We will work with you to link programs that needs are met and ideas are incorporated at a time elements to the most suitable location on the site. when the master plan is most flexible. We would begin the public outreach process by working with the City Our method on past projects is to develop several and public to identify project issues and opportunities. alternative design concepts that each meet the We will encourage a process of inquiry and dialogue so requirements of the program and the client. These can be that the best decisions can emerge from the collective evaluated to consider the advantages and disadvantages of knowledge of the City and the Park Board. each. None Investigation of the site conditions, numerous interview We have a proven track record in developing master plan sessions with the Parks staff, public agencies and designs and documents for the preferred alternative which public participants means we will spend a considerable satisfy both site and client requirements. Many of our amount of time on the site and in the community during projects include the development of detail plans for the the beginning of the project. We will spend time implementation of the master plan. communicating with all involved, culminating with an inventory and analysis public meeting, where we will In the early stages of project planning we also consider inform and solicit input from users. Subsequently, we maintenance and management goals, integrating solutions will encourage ongoing communication throughout the into our designs. project's life to monitor the status of the project, and to ; i�, respond to new ideas ,V 7 ' ,� and needs as they /- : �:;, \ emerge. We have found this process rewarding and the y;I', : Expertise Active Recreation Design Designing to Complement Natural Site Attributes Active recreation facilities need to be carefully sized J.A. Brennan Associates applies a systems approach to sit 44.00 and sited to minimize impacts in sensitive environments. analysis and site suitability mapping on natural resource Our experience includes working with parks that contain and park projects. Our experience with site suitability both active and passive recreation elements. By creating mapping has led to design products that are well integrated separate but connected activity zones we are able to design into the site,work with the topography,vegetation, and features for parks that offer recreation opportunities for all preserve and enhance these special site attributes. age groups. At Heather Downs Park, it will be important to find a solution for creating accessible connections Designing People Places between active play areas and passive recreation elements. Dedicated to creating dynamic urban spaces,J.A. Brennan designs places where all people gather to enjoy Good drainage of recreation fields is imperative. As sports community. We believe in connecting people to place and field designers,we are familiar with all of the various that aesthetic improvements relate to quality of life. We available sports surfaces and their diverse performance create places that give the public access to experiences and characteristics. generate social involvement. By considering community needs and aesthetics,we design successful spaces for Our team has a depth of experience in playground design. reflection, enjoyment,pedestrian and bicycle access, We approach playground design with the playfulness public transportation access, and gathering. By selecting of the children we are designing for,while considering technical issues such as stages of child development, ' - r ' rye g . , --,<+ l' illt, '', , t, - 11197-j '1----;,14-,.:::,,, ' '"':: 1r '4, s 4 •_______.4- -sic -,.g..-4.0 , .,:_. . , .- .., _ - )__ _ ,_,w.........:„,.....„... .._ i- - ,....... _.,--,,,, --,...: ., .,-, e•• '.• '' -—4.440--,9"- .--— -4-z .. ti's L! `\j"'.� 3 .,.—, r� Y`'� ' J� Squalicum Fields Master Plan i�c City of Bellingham `� '� appropriate seating, planters, shelters, walls, benches, lighting and bollards, community demographics and ------ these urban people-places function well. interests, spatial complexity, and site opportunities and constraints. Our experience includes Programming, Site Planning,and ADA Accessibility designing play environments with a diversity of play J.A. Brennan plans and programs projects to meet elements and equipment types. In addition,we utilize the visitor requirements and needs. We assimilate data to most current consumer product safety guidelines. Fall characterize visitor use patterns and to analyze seasonal protection, equipment spacing, and ADA standards are peaks and daily use. We identify site carrying capacity, incorporated into our playground design in a way that which is helpful in identifying the limit of possible visitor promotes safety and enables challenging fun play. numbers to maintain the desired visitor experience. Our park projects meet A.D.A. accessibility requirements and We look forward to providing a design that will best make the visitor experience enjoyable for all. meet your programming needs,budget limitations, and Nedi maintenance resources. 6 j.a.brennan associates,pile Expertise Pedestrian Circulation and Trail Connections We design paths to lead visitors through a variety of you to insure that your safety concerns are addressed during Sone habitats and spaces within each site, while building the design process. linkages to the surrounding community. Our designs link educational areas, Sustainable Design Principles events/activity areas, Throughout the development of our projects we consider and passive recreation established sustainabilitypolicies and LEED design areas in an easily x g standards. Whenever feasible, we use materials requiring understandable pattern. . the least amount of energy to produce;we utilize on- Our designers can a site materials;we incorporate adaptive reuse of existing develop paths to serve ;�, . structures, and we use recycled materials for site furniture. a variety of user groups I including joggers and - Other principles of sustainable design that J.A. Brennan strollers. We recognize �' r ty " incorporates into designs include surface storm water that conflict between systems that limit or eliminate culverts,bio-swales that user groups may arise; provide water filtration in parking areas, on-site detention we can address these or retention for flood control,filtration and ground water issues in the public recharge. participation process Eureka's Waterfront Park by J.A. Brennan Our designs maximize habitat for wildlife,provide native and in the physical design of the circulation plants for food and habitat, diminish construction impacts, provide biodiversity, encourage non-motorized circulation system. We bring our extensive experience in pedestrian circulation system design for parks to the project. routes, consider existing and future links between the site and surrounding community,and often incorporate solar Access and Parking energy sources. Significant design considerations in the development Maintenance and Operations of parks include access and circulation. Typical issues A great deal of consideration is given to future park include peak recreational use, site carrying capacity, adjacent land uses, and neighborhood context. We maintenance, the life span, and life cycle cost of selected can evaluate anticipated traffic volumes and routes materials. The J.A. Brennan team has recent experience in relationship to existing and future road capacity, in preparing maintenance and operations plans for along with peak traffic impacts as well as hours of use. parks, campuses,theme gardens, campgrounds, and trail Potential access points need to be evaluated for impact systems. We have developed task plans,procedures, and to the adjacent community,road network, and safety. projected annual Maintenance and Operation costs. We Additionally, siting parking in a safe manner that also have worked directly with management and maintenance minimizes impacts to the site and considers site lines J.A.Brennan's parking design for White 441 for access will also be a design consideration. Access Center Sorts Park for small maintenance vehicles is also often a design • t i � . consideration. 'zi ', • Park Safety Safety concerns will be considered key in the design development of the Heather Downs Park Master Plan. J.A. - Brennan utilizes principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) when planning and developing parks and open space. We design with CPTED principles in mind, maximizing natural surveillance, implementing access controls,reinforcing territoriality,and encouraging natural activities. We will work closely with j.a.brennan associates,pllc 7 Expertise personnel in numerous agencies to determine which We believe in creating healthy type of improvement or modifications will work given maintenance resources available. We have carefully environments for people ttld tailored all of our projects to insure the design proposal can be maintained given available resources. enjoy recreational activities.. Multi-Faceted Design Solutions J.A. Brennan's designs consider existing site conditions 1{ and use nature to solve stormwater issues. Working v within the Low Impact Design (LID) framework,we use a natural systems approach to develop stormwater treatment systems. By utilizing a site's natural features,we -1' � ' a- �,,, ..,,�;,., minimize impacts to the site,without disturbing existing ` - — . , sr :' - habitat and vegetation. Rather than clearing and grading •. F ' an entire site and removing all vegetation,we look for the ,�- Lf r " '* „� areas on the site that provide the best natural stormwater ` features and then work to protect those areas by providing ' adequate buffering. i, For this to happen the design and master planning process must incorporate the drainage and grading issues from the -- x .` .410a- ' very beginning. Using natural features both in terms of Carkeek Park gathering area water quality enhancement and detention and being sure to fit the improvements into the site topography are critical to State and Local Permitting Requirements the success of minimizing impacts. To develop park facilities at Heather Downs Park several local and state regulatory agencies may become involved NIS Q * r in permitting the development process. Agencies involved , t, _: 1° Mathison Park is envisioned c *� as a new Neighborhood may include the City of Renton Development Services and FENCE "'�' , - -� park in the of Burien. the Washington State Department of Ecology. To enhance ', ��' City project planning and ensure meeting project deadlines,we f."4' p , Ai i As such,the 5.3-acre park 'l, irewill identify regulatory constraints affecting park design X F = is intended to serve the 4') p / v, �, , residents within a half-mile, and implementation from the project's onset. I r �� ! tf providingpassive and � both `6 active recreational elements. Familiarity with City of Renton Relevant Codes and 'r ::,:x Standards !` ,, , .# Mathison Park will improve 4�'" y,ais upon the unique forested The J.A. Brennan team is familiar with the City of ,t xr �Nu ';t6..,,,-,4{ character of this urban Renton's codes and standards. We provided landscape , „_ �' , site through vegetation architectural services for the Renton Waterfront Trail � 3 ,', � management. Lastly,the Project. ��,r •—;,r s i park will commemorate in 'Ai some way the donation of sk� property ly aT k { r �` yid° thebythe Mathison 'i;.4-01--4-; , „ ° family. IV,30 Illinii -• •10 8 j.a.brennan associates,pllc Preferred Process Preferred Process In developing Heather Downs Park, our team will work � closely with the City of Renton throughout the design Fy?, process to ensure that the plan reflects the City's vision ° z for the park. Our reputation is based upon capturing the client's vision for the project and responding to site conditions and our client's needs. � n k Phase 1 —Inventory and Site Assessment Development of a Park Master Plan Project Administration/Coordination/Communications �� x1,14 • The key to success in developing master plans is developing a project team, including the client team and project stakeholders,that jointly develops the master plan. This team approach provides a setting for the efficient exchange and evaluation of information and provides a forum for effective and clear project communications. Our project manager,Jim Brennan,will work closely with the City's project manager,Bill Rasmussen, to manage the project process, schedule and budget. The project administration, coordination and communications effort will include the following: slow • Coordinate all administrative work pertaining to the master plan including correspondence, scheduling and billing. • Provide updates to the Community Services Public Involvement Department and project manager on the project Our team will assist the City, Park Board,and City schedule, consultant progress, and discuss critical Council with community meetings throughout the issues. planning process. At the outset of the project we will • Provide decision makers with project updates as meet with you to determine the appropriate meeting required. format and schedule for the stakeholder and community involvement process. Site Inventory and Analysis Following the preliminary project team meeting,where Our approach is to focus discussions on the issues, the community involvement strategies will be reviewed opportunities, and challenges of the project site, and then (see below), our team will begin to collect and analyze discuss practical solutions that become public resources. site information. The analysis process will include Our goal in community involvement is to ensure that definition of use patterns, impacts of surrounding land all parties get a chance to be heard,provide meaningful uses, and natural system patterns. This analysis step will input, and realize they are a part of the public process generally focus on existing published site information and are a vital part of their community. We will provide (provided by the City)and extensive site visits. The site graphics and meeting facilitation as needed in support of visits will include on-site meetings with Community City staff. Services staff. A base map will be prepared that identifies and locates natural and man-made features. j.a. brennan associates,plic 9 Preferred Process Capture the Vision/Identify Potential Uses Future Park Facility and Use Program Definition Our team will assist Community Services in articulating During the analysis phase our team will work with the shared vision for Heather Downs Park. We will Community Services staff to define an initial park facility document the project vision, goals, and potential park and use program. This program analysis will include elements. This step will assure that the Master Plan meets existing uses as well as a range of other potential uses that the needs of users and the community. A design program have been defined. The use program will be fine-tuned will be developed for improvements that meet funding during the community involvement process. requirements, client,public input, and recreation design criteria. In addition,criteria will be developed that guide Developing and discussing the potential park use program the conservation and stewardship of resources and natural while the site analysis process is going on ensures that the system enhancement process. future program under consideration is in balance with the site conditions. By limiting site program elements to those Public Meeting No. I— that are appropriate to the site, the potential for unsuitable Informational Meeting and Vision Discussion uses that may be defined during the community process J.A. Brennan Associates endorses a user based planning can be reduced. process. The first meeting will be informational and will solicit ideas on the overall project vision,uses, issues, Based on the results of the site analysis,technical input facts,and concerns. We will bring a base map explaining and public workshops,we will develop a preliminary the existing features of the project area. At the meeting Park Design Program that details proposed park uses,and we will gather information from participants and discuss design character. The final report will be presented to the passive and active recreation programming,key planning City Council. issues, and the greater vision for the site in an open and forward moving environment. This initial meeting will also be used to discuss site suitability and an initial Alternative Development recreation development program. Our team will develop two schematic design alternatives based on the site analysis and the approved Park Design Subsequent to the public meeting, and a meeting with Program. The alternatives will include recreation and the City and the Park Board in which a detailed design trail development, access and circulation,parking,natural program and park vision are established, a meeting with systems enhancement,and storm water treatment. A range the advisory team will be held to review and verify the of opportunities will be considered, so that no good ideas design program. A final report summarizing the proposed are left unexplored. park uses,design character,and design criteria will be produced for final approval of the City Council. The two alternatives will reflect variations of the theme defined in the vision and preliminary program phase. The visioning process assists in setting the long-term The alternatives will be analyzed to assess the assets and direction for the project and allows the community to liabilities of each, including program compliance and site express its vision for the park's identity. fit. A narrative that summarizes the evaluation process for each alternative will be developed that summarizes the Development of an Issues and Opportunities Graphic existing conditions, design alternatives,cost implications The site analysis information will be summarized with and regulatory criteria and identifies issues that require the issues and opportunities map. This site map will further study at the next state of project development. provide the foundation for testing where the most suitable locations for park program elements(ball field,trails, parking,restroom)on the site will be.A memorandum Regulatory Considerations will be prepared that summarizes the identified issues and Regulatory requirements are critical to consider opportunities. in the development of a Master Plan for the project. Early agency involvement ' - is critical to identifying the critical steps � ��I needed to keep the project on track and 10 j.a.brennan associates,pltc Preferred Process to focus the planning process on design concepts that are ,ter - , v. feasible from a permitting perspective. We will develop , � � �.�#� ,� � � ` 1: , an implementation schedule that considers the timing � , � ��„�„��,,, spraii .64 considerations of the permitting process. i 4.` ` ' ,•. Our approach to regulatory requirements is to include �� ". �ir+�" the reviewing agencies as a part of our team by involving , 't. ;" -',1f . 'f " the agencies early in the planning process. We have had y� �, .....,,,,,,,,,,,,i4,16,„.. s ,t great success in arranging a specific site visit and meetingAh. t` �� for agency staff to introduce the Master Plan alternatives. r " ' ` ' 114. ®. This allows the agencies to provide input early in the 4' . >, t` h process so that we can identify any permitting challenges. vik, ,r� The greatest benefit with this approach is that it generates ��'� . '�, � il j t� 4 r 1 i' agency support,which leads to a successful project both ,,:1,� � i I �" from a permitting and funding perspective. We anticipate : ' e 0 � �, a relatively simple permit process on this project.; t 'ti s` � 64 ,4� Master Plan The next step will be to develop the master plan based '" on the preferred elements from the alternative designs. The alternative plans will be analyzed,pulled apart and reassembled, assessing the strengths and weaknesses of each,until the best aspects of each can be woven together into a Master Plan that balances active and passive The public participation process will be well documented recreation opportunities and meets available financial in the final report. All applicable project graphics will Nilo, resources. The cost estimates and operational models will be included in the fmal document. The final report will be updated and presented for review and comment. A incorporate comments received from the City on memos timeline for the permitting process will be identified. prepared for each task listed above.Subsequent to site- truthing and additional review,the Final schematic design Public Meeting No. 2-Draft Master Plan Review (Master Plan),along with cost estimate,will be developed for The draft master plan will be presented at a community presentation to the City Council. Minor revisions to the master meeting. The preferred Master Plan alternative for plan will be made following presentations to the council. Heather Downs will be presented. The process will be emphasized, showing the Draft Master Plan as it relates to Phase II site opportunities and constraints,community input, and alternatives. Design Development Drawings Following development of the master plan,we will create Final Schematic Design(Master Plan)and Report design development level drawings that clearly illustrate The Draft Master Plan will be modified to reflect input design elements in plans and sections,and product from Meeting No. 2 and will be presented to the Park information will be provided for discussion of appropriate Board for recommendation to the City Council. Following materials. Our understanding of the site will make it the review of comments on the master plan,we will work possible for us to assist the City in quickly arriving at with Community Services to prepare the Final Schematic appropriate design detailing. An important step in this Plan that includes a synthesis of all work completed. The phase is to transition the key design concepts into cost final plan will address priorities and the preferred level controlled,buildable components available for bid. We are of recreational development established at the conceptual very familiar with the construction details for neighborhood alternative level. Final development will consider access parks, so developing detailed design that suits the site will points,recreation areas, trails,parking, storm water be performed with the greatest efficiency. fir+`treatment and detention areas,picnic areas, and restrooms. j.a.brennan associates,pile 11 �,rrrrrrr _ Preferred Process Products will include preparation of a stormwater Bidding Phase management plan. Establishing appropriate new We will assist the City in preparing and distributing leo stormwater management methods will be critical to the addenda,including supplementary drawings, project as the design development phase is completed. specifications, instructions and notices of changes in the bidding schedule and procedure. We will participate in Construction Documents pre-bid conferences,and assist in evaluating bids. We Plans, specifications and preliminary cost estimates will have extensive experience in completing bidding and be prepared. The final cost estimate will be based on construction observation services, and will bring this extensive past project experience,backed up by current past experience to the project to ensure that the bidders cost research. Costs will be tracked on a continuing basis receive the information required in a timely manner and so that any impacts to the overall budget can be identified the bids come in within the allotted Maximum Allowable early and adjustments to the design made in a timely Construction Cost(MACC). manner. At the completion of the design development phase,we will recommend additive or deductive alternate Construction Phase Services bid items to maximize the utilization of construction Lastly,we will closely manage and oversee construction funds. for compliance with construction documentation. The services of each discipline will be available to ensure that Construction documents will be submitted at 50%, all project elements are implemented per code and per 90%,and 100%completion to allow for adequate City the plans and specifications. Drew Coombs will attend review of all aspects of the project and by all relevant weekly construction meetings. Additional construction departments. Work between the team members will be surveillance visits are recommended at key landscape closely coordinated to allow for timely submittals of and building construction stages. The J.A. Brennan the construction documents as established early in the team will communicate with the contractor through the construction document phase together with the City's City's Project Specialist and will review and approve or project manager,Bill Rasmussen. disapprove all contractor submittals in a timely manner. ,40004 it ^k.4:ai \6114', kto: iIrt! t� SBs : sem a 'z � „.-0,141: �pp q iii i5:* ,40 ,, I, • t"„ -"' '"�4 yrs •t�% . ff I *` • 4 tt*` !p's'�1` . ly'+. `{p� gyp, . i ' �,� M �. Mem.,._.. �• 't� � � *' .. � Afivio t . . ` k° .,yp ' 'J,.. 12 j.a.brennan associates,pllc Project Examples ,.,, 4-4. Cedar Grove Park Kr , , City of Bothell, Bothell, Washington a «s ..�', ' currently under construction @ t \ IIY' T 1 int I , i, I j ;` , h ei r "'.' }*eoe w+Ashnsvi. 'i 1 1• 47, ± x fir. ' - i 1 - -.w iia.... 4,„iik . < i , Y s . �" /ter I ,. C' r t '', otil • . . ..- .47:::eti r,i'i ! •', ' f' eke `c / f n ' d *o. =.; yr $ : �1„ �„:yiii;„ . .*),‘,7 4 Tit' ,i..,„fdt h!(l.�•71! ' A AA- ' ,� ,. at b � al firi a. _ � . �t� Z\ < -tas3�uv er�.t`It , t i $ 8 "l ' , ' 1,/....•- am -, r '' F a - .�� y � "" ice t re .vim ". . J.A.Brennan's design for Cedar Grove Park protected existing stands . .. of cedar trees and created a children's play area and gathering space for parents in a safe, well lighted area. ,� J.A. Brennan Associates executed design development and picnic tables among the grove, and by the boardwalk and developed construction documents for Cedar Grove and viewdeck(made mostly of salvaged wood) across Park. The site of a former small mink farm,the new the stream and wetland complex. Park recreation park maintains the site's exceptional natural character by elements such as a ball field,basketball court, and protecting the site's namesake and by enhancing Perry children's play area, are situated conveniently and in less Creek and its associated wetlands. environmentally-sensitive locations. ADA accessible trails connect the diverse spaces with the park, enabling The design utilizes these natural amenities for passive all residents to enjoy both active and passive recreation recreational purposes as showcased in the picnic shelter opportunities. Now j.a. brennan associates,pllc 13 Project Examples North Ambaum Park Development Plan - r ' City of Burien, Burien,Washington Ntriti ' -- ------„,\\ 4 , } \ _ ',.Filtif '$3 .ate" *k ' �"� STNEEOTNEE .7 ••• ;�"'�.'Y A /.4.1i_ ' . CHNNIMt FEN . w )' , .�.weln � . 1, ,s I %Kli '1 • I Oiii: :: PLAYGROUND ----CONDHEDGE sroE..'unenuu ECU DONS sw , 6 t4 t'��' '-- •••• TRACK AROI'NG ` Ex CONDOS t 111.1 �y-'► PLAYGROUND AFRER SAFETY FIN. p ¢ Date Concept Design Completed: August 2004 • '� . , '�.<�'„ Design Development and Construction Documents, E 4 \API Spring 2005 a-i+ 74 ti 'r'. w 411441 i /a 1:?*'=;,&16% +,•'*".,417-,1 .-..— = 1/i,,,, wr .. - --.d: -'- 4 �yF�/ „_.., „ . _ _......., „, JA. Brennan developed a conceptual design for a As the northern entrance into Burien,North Ambaum neighborhood park along North Ambaum Avenue in Park has the opportunity to function as a City gateway; the City of Burien. The one-acre vacant site sits amid a the view into the park will be defined by a green canopy commercial use district and multi-family housing within above and below,by an attractive inward-facing seat Ned a highly developed section of Burien. The neighborhood wall with lettering on the street side announcing the park. is under served from a park standpoint, so J.A. Brennan Gateway structures along the pedestrian and vehicular developed a program that would accommodate a variety entrances will further define the gateway idea. of activities and attract a user group widely ranging in age. The park's recreation space will include a children's Other design elements include lawn for casual group play area and basketball court, along with a plaza space activity and picnics,berming for spectators and for community gathering. parking lot screening, and porous pavement. Design issues include safety considerations, security lighting, Responding to the L-shaped lot,J.A. Brennan pursued a maintenance expense, stormwater detention,and theme of age-group activity separation, with a common arranging park elements to provide visibility form the ground,or Hub,to serve as the base for large groups. street and parking lot. Thus,two half-court basketball courts are located at the opposite side of the L as the play equipment. The Hub is anchored by a restroom building,plaza,picnic area, and a large existing Willow tree. � � � 2 - ,, z - zH\, u Imo„ ;yam,y t1111 / - 1 AP e i '� N �`.� ` / PARKING � ft.* , � � , � GfCuc -.. ;. . � [ . — _� �—�_ Will_ 1 AMBAUM SIDEWALK BERM CENTRAL PLAZA RESTROOM BUFFER PLANTINGS BLVD SEAT WALL SEAT ROCKS FENCE SW PARK SIGN 14 j.a.brennan associates,plic Project Examples Hauge Homestead Park City of Everett Parks and Recreation JA. Brennan Associates assisted the City of Everett Parks and Recreation in the design development and contract documents for this popular neighborhood waterfront park on Silver Lake. The park provides waterfront access for fishing and wadding,play meadows, a playground,picnic areas, and a gatheringplaza. r'. -- P Yg > � I :ti '-77,- .7- Biofiltration swales were included in the project to protect .w f;le'' '- „ water quality in Silver Lake and to enhance wildlife habitat. The planting concept included the protection of existing trees and the provision of large specimen tree {' plantings. Low maintenance native and naturalized shrubs I and groundcovers were recommended to enhance buffers, and provide spatial definition. Wetland plantings were _ »t— provided in swales,ponds, and the lake. ` Webster Park and Playground Groundswell NW, Seattle, Washington JA. Brennan Associates, in coordination with Groundswell NW, developed the organization's - -- schematic plans into construction documents for a Nneighborhood park and associated playground area. J.A. :ir1 Brennan coordinated with an artist for integration of art C . ...7----1 features into the park. Concrete and tile walls create an ,' edge between the walkways,plaza, and landscape open -a--�_ space. Active recreation elements include a children's • '> �� p.14,,,%.,.„1, play area,an informal play meadow, and basketball courts. ; `▪"' -- , 4 , ., .. Grading and irrigation design were also part of the project. ` The neighborhood park provides opportunities for residents to safely participate in healthy activities. 1 a hABtt0.T p 0.RTiNGS— �.{Ci �� I (y a WA-ER FOUNTAN--- '= y h ... ,'.. SEW.. l' ` N ei 91A NS''..' H 1.1 IL ` I-4160. - .. ,.. ,,, , RAI,— 1 -L. —f` — ' ' t ✓.r' 4".) I3 1 I .`..�.. ti ' SUNOAI -- �� h's..-' .' F .. r CT 1 CCMNUWTr NGSAK: .. IV., f \ ',-,' F ._ . tRASI'RECEPtICEE �— • `- Pl are'fe0 - . 67191E PLAYGROVND i,. . `. *, .1 41.`",' ,•. ,.. 9 ti ' t .{ -BASKE18Pl.COUR'S `—.1 . .. ..�.... - ___ "TIES': BASKETBALL BACKBOARD S NE' - ___ " �'""-` ,•�� - -- ,a - dgIAP.DS _ j.a.hrennan associates,rug 15 Project Examples Bitter Lake Reservoir Open Space Development Seattle Parks and Recreation Department, Seattle, Washington T.A. Brennan Associates worked with Seattle Parks t ' to develop a park at Bitter Lake Reservoir and -ftiliimiiimaccalsgemoitamerim create a sense of place for the Bitter Lake Community. � ' r _ +} r • Improvements to the reservoir's open space seek to express P P P P 1 the community's identity while also improving drainage conditions around the reservoir. . wog The park celebrates the reservoir's connection to Seattle's 7 • ;'• water system and utilizes sustainable design principles. ?; lc •t l, We believe the space serves as a catalyst for future ,``: community development. Design features include a small gathering space;a focal point that is unique,memorable, � and identifiable with the Bitter Lake neighborhood; s i connections to the Interurban Greenway Trail system; and drainage improvements that address stormwater runoff in a naturalistic, creative, educational,and environmentally sustainable way. The project,jointly supported by Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) and Seattle Parks,required extensive coordination x between the agencies. Safety of the water supply was a primary criterion at all times. J.A. Brennan worked with SPU to develop a design that met security requirements and development restrictions. Lake Hills Greenbelt Backyard Wildlife Habitat Garden Enhancements City of Bellevue Parks and Community Services Department, Bellevue, WA he Ranger Station serves as demonstration project 1 showcasing sustainable building materials,the reuse of rainwater, and native plantings. J.A. Brennan designed the pedestrian circulation system, crushed rock trails, and a deck,made entirely of recycled plastic, overlooking the adjacent p-patch. Custom-designed benches and planters are also made of recycled plastic. A series of new gardens attract wildlife and present an opportunity to show native and ornamental plantings that are low maintenance, drought tolerant, and disease resistant. The Butterfly Garden,the Woodland Edge,and the Habitat Pond are organized by function or ecosystem, and serve to inform park users of native plants and their environments. In conjunction with energy-saving building improvements,J.A. Brennan designed a green roof at the gateway entrance to the garden, a bold statement about the 4110 potential for green design. 16 j.a.brennan associates,pllc Project Examples Squalicum Fields Master Plan ° BIRC WOOD t 4 Nes City of Bellingham, Washington �_ a • .4.-II: ' 4--- --- ,t T.A. Brennan Associates worked with the City of , • ;ter -' Bellingham and stakeholders to develop a master plan ___ — �� ,tp, * i" y�(j, ''' 4= 1. \,IM�1.'F♦y; Project Examples Herring's House Park - vr" ., l` I-- ,, , ,, Seattle Parks and Recreation, Seattle, Washington ... JA. Brennan Associates won the Waterfront Center's international 2002 Top Honor Award for this exciting -u. park and habitat restoration project. The firm planned and designed enhanced wildlife habitat and passive park , 1 facilities for the 15-acre site on the Duwamish Waterway r. in Seattle. Services included a feasibility study, detail # design,contract documents, and construction observation IR for the park and inter-tidal aquatic habitat creation. The US Fish and Wildlife Service considers the project a model for salmonid habitat restoration. Recreational development a includes a parking area, accessible paths,trails, and picnic �.� ::` areas, including interpretive signage and outdoor classroom ' ,{ areas. Jim Brennan led a multi-disciplinary team throughout the development of this project, from feasibility study to construction observation. Duwamish River Park „,ad Port of Seattle, Seattle,Washington /(aster plan design through detail design and �, '{�;,. construction documents for an eight acre Port ' of Seattle site(Terminal 107)on the Duwamish River. _. Phased development included parking, interpretive trail, viewing points,vegetation management,picnic areas, and ..:, s • d ^ bicycle amenities requiring public, consultant,artist, and t ; " multi-agency coordination. t 'F Sad xf- " +4 - -iJ, F S � of '1- ri�5x 1 1 � VLA‘07.___ �j („ki:It2 Olt e).,,,, allitiRsi.,fr :`:-4-iie: Attr4.41 '-.. .4./'" t ____.. m 1 18 j.a.brennan associates,pile • Project Examples Sumas Ball Fields Master Plan v4000,City of Sumas, Washington avid Evans and J.A. Brennan developed a phased I_ ± master plan for athletic facilities at the Sumas Ball /4.1 1 Fields site that includes community gathering space, _ ,. sports fields and supporting facilities such as access and r _ , parking, lighting, storm water measures, concessions, and ` \ ,!r \ ' \ori, -- 1-"%,„ restrooms. Other park amenities being considered include � 11 passive recreation,playgrounds,picnic areas, shelters, a �� • -^ #` Y ' ' k skate park,vehicular and pedestrian access and circulation, lit r ESP '� '� k9 �'',Y and enhancementf y� ,,, i ` , ' r of natural areas. , Y,. . ; - '''' ',11:,„, rig -,-;01....--\ -,',1",..4., i-,..-'b, -,- , - '7 "z41- la E.-— ' ,� . ,r „�` `- w:aeonmer q4::',,,'N-"g• ,•';',,„ ?, � . t `,\ _'' Vis= ' o !aw.craN":".2r ensauni / - m �� y _\.. rte. 1 r_ r. a ili tr `r :; It oulsbo's Fish Park Master Plan City of Poulsbo, Washington MAKERS and J A Brennan developed a master plan --",,,>1 . for Poulsbo's Fish Park. The site, located at the Mound a . ?.1-j--'';,t head of Liberty Bay,has especially high environmental i -,� `- enhancement potential and will be the City's primary %'`+{{' 'f'y (' ' natural and passive park. The team worked with a steering committee to prepare a site plan and detailed elements f/_ �` includingextensive stream/estuaryrestoration with ...m„„.-_ _—-.' ,,0 Vin, , w # ' "' ,. �+„� ',. interpretive trails,passive recreation and educational 13 r # ; '` 1 , 4- `'i-�,.' x; facilities. Besides the intensive work sessions with `' :�;�� .' 3 committee members,the team conducted two public • <* k* ` "-'= � .-- y -.------;-7" open houses to establish goals, evaluate options and se r„,. , y x• r b, _,....,- --‘4.,:., priorities. t _�'�•---,', .. , ` t Ilk# ? p , .� vt s1. -1./! ,, Now' DogReir O.* Estuary j.a. brennan associates.pllc 19 Project Examples Donkey Creek Park (Gig Harbor City Park) -' -�' City of Gig Harbor, Washington ---0--, ,t. T.A. Brennan Associates'design for Donkey Creek Park � ? , ,,..- 7 - 00' , ii` ^.,4;'�" .1 reflects the city's desire for a gateway entrance to the gj'"'"4' community and restores and enhances salmon bearing ,l -, $ -, ; , Donkey Creek. Interpretive elements tell the story of *%_1 . i ,. f t.--_,,f-7:-.... , ,11.4r 11 - the area's history of shipbuilding and Native American settlements. J.A. Brennan initially developed three •, ., �.�' 1 / -�+ A 04,,,_ r 4; ;� alternative concepts showing potential development of `�� %-...7. 477,<, .� ,a•. z the site. Through an involved public process,the final `„ _ `'`. ''` ~. conceptual plan was developed. \-----",---� ,"E`"OR--- ---`-\--,..k.,::.,_,_� ; „,.,-:,\, ;ti, Project responsibilities include master planning, conceptual -- --, : design of the preferred alternative and coordinating public f ~ 3 ,„,---4–..... `;'a involvement. Project goals include passive recreation, interpretive and educational opportunities, enhancing auto and pedestrian circulation, and linking to the future y �;_ ,...._,1, - Gig Harbor Peninsula Historical Museum. Recreational °� ' ' � \ L�_ development includes accessible paths and trails, a rg�fa�, f --� boardwalk,pedestrian bridge,restroom,picnic shelter and "!' ---- _,.,4".' N_NIL. interpretive display. " 's � �\ 4� ` „ _ MAKERS developed conceptual plans for the restroom, i'-- . f moi- tt `` .4.-_`V,',1, 5 - picnic shelter, and interpretive display area. .4,.1��,_ ��,, White Center Park - Phases I - IV King County,Washington T.A. Brennan Associates'work was part of a series of efforts J to upgrade and rehabilitate this well used WPA era park. 7 ,17, '. • "''.." a 4 N Work included four phases;the initial phases involved the ' ,, .; redesign of parking,increased safety lighting and related -' " ```" plantings. The scope of work also included the rehabilitation i ` i��, of tennis courts,ball fields,backstops,sidewalks and slope , improvements. The final phases of work involved the design of an entry plaza,picnic shelter, lighting,and circulation through the park. Rehabilitation of existing buildings included foundations,roofing and painting. Ar' �, • ,cri,..:_, t , _1,77,,_:Immiliong. ;: \ t , -- — -_A .' e=aii, { , r F m. ..e ..e a .4/ 20 j.a.brennan associates,plic Project Examples Scriber Lake Park Master Plan Cityof Lynnwood, Washington It:� ' � , T.A. Brennan Associates is working with the City of J r^ ' 1 -111r ' Lynnwood and the community to develop a master °a , plan for the renovation of the Scriber Lake Park. Scriber I i Lake Park is primarily comprised of sensitive bog, lake 4,- • ; systems, and natural areas. Park elements proposed in the T A master plan include picnic areas,playgrounds, connection , ' a to a proposed community center,revised park entries, , a�� .� yam T4s vehicular access and parking revisions and trail and fL1 view point enhancement. Stream and lake water quality ' enhancement, improvement of park safety using CPTED ! — principles,wildlife habitat enhancement, connections - ` to the community and existing trails,floating docks and development of wayfinding and interpretive signage are ;s also important elements of the master plan. Jim Brennan is !s the project manager for the landscape architectural portion $ ��`; of the project. '; ;__ , Steven J. Underwood Memorial Park (formerly Des Moines Sports Park) Des Moines, Washington PFF provided civil engineering for a 15-acre heavily wooded site, which includes two softball fields and parking llin Phase 1. The ultimate buildout will include three softball fields,two soccer fields, a central restroom, and a play court area. Services include water quality, detention, and utility connections for the restroom facility. Trillium Ball Park — Mill Creek Ball Fields Mill Creek, Washington KPFF provided civil and structural engineering for a 4.8-acre sports park and recreation area. Amenities included a little league ball field and small soccer field with artificial turf,a skate park, and supporting parking and walkways, and a restroom building with changing rooms. Civil design included water and sewer connections for the building, storm drainage,detention,water quality, and parking lot grading and paving. Structural design included design of an underground reinforced concrete detention vault, a single-story brick/masonry storage shed, and a two-story brick/ masonry concessions building with announcer's booth on second floor. Stipek Park Master Plan, Bothell, Washington KPFF provided civil engineering services to support the landscape architects in master planning and final design of Phase I park improvements. Services also included development of the park play areas and fields. Park design consisted of drainage collection to intercept hillside seepage and route the drainage to an existing drainage ditch along the roadway. Designed frontage improvements: street widening, storm drainage,curb and gutter, sidewalk, and detention. 'tiftr+, j.a. brennan associates.plIc 21 Resumes 0 j.a. brennanassociatesP11` James A. Brennan,ASLA Jim Brennan, as principal of J.A.Brennan Associates, is responsible for Principal a diverse range of landscape architectural design and planning Landscape Architect projects. Jim's experience includes site selection and master planning through design development, construction documents, and construction observation. Jim is committed to providing imaginative solutions that produce the best fit between the project objectives and excellence in site Education planning and design. Jim has a particular interest in the development Bachelor of Landscape of open space for public enjoyment. Architecture,University of Washington,Seattle,WA,1983 Park Master Planning and Design Jim specializes in park master planning and has developed a depth of experience in park developments ranging from active to passive Professional recreation facilities, educational trail systems,urban parks,and the Licenses/Registration preservation and enhancement of sensitive natural areas. Jim has 20 Bachelor of Landscape years of experience with projects in the USA and Asia,including over Architecture,University of 25 large-scale recreational developments and community parks. Washington,Seattle,WA, 1983 Recreation Facility Programming Experience Jim is an expert in working with client groups, educators,the 20 years community,and recreational user groups in developing programs for park master plans. Programming skills include identification of site carrying capacity, an understanding of recreation and educational Joined Firm activities and their associated physical requirements. 1985 Public Involvement Jim has focused his career on projects that are of current interest to the Relevant Expertise community or in sensitive environments where communication and involvement with public groups and individuals is critical to the Park Planning&Design project's success. Facilitation of public meetings,working with stakeholder groups,and resolving critical community issues are all areas of Jim's expertise. Environmental Enhancement Project Examples Public Involvement Cedar Grove Park—Bothell,WA Jim served as landscape architectural project manager for the Recreation&Education implementation of a neighborhood park master plan. Responsibilities Programming included design development services through construction documents for the park,which provides active and passive recreation opportunities. Mathison Park Development Plan—Burien,WA Principal-in-charge for the schematic design of a neighborhood park that provides diverse uses including active uses in the open area,a play area,picnic shelter,restroom, and informal field. Webster Park and Playground—Groundswell NW,Seattle,WA Jim worked with the Groundswell NW community group to design a neighborhood park,Webster Park and Playground. He assisted in coordinating with Seattle Parks and Recreation,project permitting,and completing construction documents for the park. *soil 22 j.a.brennan associates,pllc Resumes j.a. brennan .1%10,13 Its Pi It James A. Brennan,ASLA Principal Sumas Ballfields Master Plan—Sumas,WA Landscape Architect Landscape architectural project manager for the development of sport fields and supporting facilities such as: access and parking, lighting, storm water measures,concessions,and restrooms. North Ambaum Park Development Plan—Burien,WA Honors and Awards Principal-in-charge for the conceptual design of North Ambaum Park,a Herring's House Park, The neighborhood park that features active recreation elements such as a Waterfront Center's basket ball court and a children's play area. Additional park elements International Top Honor Award, include restroom and limited parking area. Jim also provided public 2002 involvement facilitation services and prepared cost estimates for state grant applications. City of Eureka Inner Channel Dock and Boardwalk Renton Waterfront Trail and Shoreline Restoration—Burien,WA Revitalization,Distinguished Principal-in-charge for the development of a waterfront trail and Project of the Year,North shoreline restoration project on Lake Washington's southern end. Jim Coast(California)Region 2002, developed a conceptual plan for the trail that includes habitat American Public Works restoration elements and pedestrian amenities such as seating. Jim Association coordinated with adjacent land owners to ensure that the design fits aesthetically and functionally with future development in the area. Carkeek Park Improvement Project,Seattle Department of White Center Sports Park Phases I-IV—King County,WA Parks and Recreation,Honor Project landscape architect responsible from master planning through *tor Award,American Society of construction support for improvements to three baseball fields,and the Landscape Architecture, 1999 design for renovation of a sports park,which included rehabilitation and reorganization of the parking area,ball fields,tennis courts,irrigation,and City of Ping Tung, Civic Park existing buildings. Jim designed the plaza and picnic area including Design,First place in lighting,sidewalk and paving,grading and drainage improvements. international design competition Squalicum Fields Master Plan—City of Bellingham,WA As principal-in-charge,Jim Brennan led a team of five subconsultants City of Bellevue,Lake Hills to complete a master plan for a community park and sports filed Greenbelt Art Project: complex at the site of a reclaimed concrete production facility. Jim Received first place with artist for design facilitated the public involvement process and developed a master plan that includes sport fields and supporting facilities such as restrooms, concession stands,picnic areas,park maintenance areas,and natural Terminal 105 Viewpoint Park, enhancement areas are also included in the plan. American Society of Landscape Architects Merit Award Wonderwood Park Master Plan Redesign—Lacey,WA Project landscape architect responsible for coordination with the community and parks department,refinement of project program and goals,and master planning for increased active and passive recreational opportunities while preserving mature woodlands and renovating existing facilities. Juanita Beach Park Master Plan,Kirkland,WA Principal in charge for the development of a park master plan to rejuvenate Juanita Beach Park. Opportunities include improving water quality at the swimming beach,creating better connections to the surrounding community, enhancing linkages between separate park segments,and improving active recreation features of the park. j.a. brennan associates,plIc 23 Resumes j.a. brennan ]S ocIdt C% P1 Tt. James A. Brennan,ASLA Principal Darrington Recreation Fields Feasibility Study—Darrington,WA Landscape Architect Project manager responsible for agency and public involvement coordination,permit coordination,IAC funding process,and alternative active and passive recreation design concepts. Critical to the project was balancing site use with protection of wetlands and forest ecosystems. The forty-acre site accommodates recreational fields,camping areas,a picnic area,and passive recreation. Presentations/Published Herring's House Park—Seattle,WA Articles Managed a twelve member multi-disciplinary team for this award "Cultural Landscapes," winning park design,soils remediation and intertidal marsh creation. Presented to the Washington Project elements included shoreline design,grading design,planting State Department of Parks and design,agency and tribal coordination,cost estimating and Recreation,2003 environmental planning. Carkeek Park Improvement Project—Seattle,WA "Telling the Story in the Land," Project manager responsible for coordinating with Seattle Department of Daily Journal of Commerce, Parks and Recreation and community groups to enhance a salmon stream Seattle,April 10, 2003 and associated wetlands for improved fish habitat and educational opportunities. Work included design and construction documents for "Public All in Overall Campus boardwalks,bridges,picnic nodes,fish habitat structures,trail systems, Planning,"Presented at the wetland ponds,and park plaza. 2002 International Public Art Symposium, Taipei, Taiwan Duwamish River Park Master Plan—Seattle,WA **1010 Project manager responsible for coordination of multi-disciplinary team "Native Plantings and for a large-scale shoreline park including archaeological resources and Vegetating Steep Slopes art incorporation into the passive park design. Completion of site Around Puget Sound," analysis, alternative design development and evaluation,master plan Presented at the 2001 development, detail design and cost estimating. Jim was also Biotechnical and Soil responsible for project permitting support. Bioengineering Methods for Slope Stabilization and Erosion Taylor Avenue Dock—Bellingham,WA Control Seminar Project landscape architect for a waterfront park and connecting pedestrian dock on Bellingham's waterfront. Jim's responsibilities include for master plan development and design detailing of the waterfront park and dock amenities including railings,lighting,seating, and other site furniture. Swan Creek Park Master Plan—Tacoma,WA Project manager responsible for developing a management plan, phasing plan and cost estimate for a 230-acre regional park in Tacoma. Issues included recreation program,stream enhancement,forest resources,and education potentials. Lake Hills Ranger Station--Bellevue,WA Principal-in-charge of a demonstration garden that applies LEED principles. The project modified existing plantings to create more • sustainable garden displays that attract wildlife and showcase native and ornamental plantings that are low maintenance,drought tolerant, and disease resistant. 24 j.a.brennan associates,pltc Resumes j.a. brennan asat+r.fat Cf PLIC Drew Coombs Drew Coombs, as a landscape designer at J.A. Brennan Associates, is Landscape Designer responsible for a diverse range of landscape architectural design and planning projects. Drew's interests include urban design,park planning and design, and restoration and preservation of the natural Education environment. Initial planning sketches, coordinating team meetings, Bachelor of Landscape AutoCAD drafting, cost estimating, and preparing construction Architecture,University of documents and reports are all areas of Drew's expertise. British Columbia,Vancouver, B.C.,and Malaspina University- Neighborhood Park Planning and Design College,1997 Drew's expertise includes recreation programming for neighborhood parks and open spaces. He has worked as a team member on many of J.A.Brennan's park projects. His work has included the design of Experience recreation,educational,and restoration elements in sensitive natural and Seven years cultural park developments. He recently completed construction observation services for the development of Bitter Lake Reservoir Open Joined Firm Space,a neighborhood park in North Seattle. 2000 Project Examples Relevant Expertise Bitter Lake Reservoir Open Space Plan—Seattle,Washington Drew developed construction documents,cost estimates,and specifications for this community open space project's trails,plaza,and Park Planning&Design drainage improvements. Drew performed construction observation ,No . services,including preparation of meeting notes,review of submittals, Urban&Streetscape Design pay requests and modification proposals. Drew worked closely with Seattle Parks and the contractor to ensure the unique paving design was Waterfront Design installed successfully. Renton Waterfront Trail—City of Renton,WA Sustainable Design Drew was involved in landscape design services for the development of a conceptual plan for the Renton Waterfront Trail. Drew's responsibilities included assisting with park programming,graphic production,coordinating stakeholder meetings,and cost estimating services. Sumas Ballfields—City of Sumas,WA Drew prepared graphics and cost estimates for a master plan to renovate an existing community park. Park upgrades included the addition of two new baseball fields with additional parking and a concession facility with restroom. Drew prepared analysis graphics and presentation graphics for public meetings as well as the IAC Grant application materials for the City of Sumas. Squalicum Creek Park Master Plan—Bellingham,WA Landscape designer for the development of a park master plan at the site of a formal gravel pit. Park elements include active and passive features including ballfields,walking paths,off-leash dog park,picnic areas and children's play area. Drew prepared alternative graphics and final master plan graphics for this project. Drew also provided support to develop an estimated water use schedule for the park facility that "'fir► would be fed by an available on site natural spring. j.a. brennan associates,pllc 25 Resumes 440P j.a. brennan Drew Coombs Scriber Lake Park Master Plan—Lynnwood,WA Landscape Designer Drew is providing landscape design services for the development of a master plan for Lynnwood's Scriber Lake Park. Drew's responsibilities include assisting with park programming and graphics production. Tacoma Chinese Reconciliation Park—Tacoma,WA Landscape Designer responsible for preparing details and graphics for public involvement presentations for a five million dollar traditional Chinese garden that will tell the story of the expulsion of the Chinese Community from Tacoma in the late 1800's. The project design includes waterfront enhancement,a traditional Chinese garden, environmental art,and interpretive elements. Port of Seattle Bike Path—Seattle,WA Drew provided CAD Production assistance and construction observation services for this Bike Trail along Port property. Issues include irrigation design,plant selection,and design continuity. Morris Street Improvement Project—La Conner,WA Drew prepared alternative option graphics and assisted in a design charrette for the City of La Conner's Morris Street Improvement Project. The process allowed the community to participate in the design and planning of the project at a key decision making point. ivati Burien 4th Avenue Streetscape—Burien,WA Drew prepared the planting design and irrigation plans,along with providing construction observation services for this redesign of the City of Burien's 4th Avenue. The project involved designing an innovative drip irrigation system that insures low water use by deep watering trees and plants. South 180th Street Grade Separation Project—Tukwila,WA Drew prepared contract documents for this two acre wetland project. The concept for the wetland design draws on the historical landscape of the Springbrook Creek flood plain. Elements of a river ox-bow have been incorporated to strengthen the connection to the natural setting. The restored wetland incorporates raised hummocks to enable conifer planting within the wetland. Newport Creek Improvements—City of Bellevue,WA Drew,as landscape designer,provided design services and developed construction documents for irrigation,vegetation enhancements, and drainage improvements to Sear's Creek's degraded urban watershed system. Seattle Public Utilities Tank Remediation Project,Seattle,WA Project landscape designer for this residential landscape redesign project necessary due to soil contamination. New soil was brought in to replace contaminated soil at residences adjacent to four water tanks in Seattle. Drew also provided construction observation services for this project,reporting progress on a regular basis to Seattle Public Utilities. 26 j.a.brennan associates,pllc Resumes •i.a. brennan Tanja Wilcox Tanja Wilcox has a wide range of experience in planning and design, Senior Associate including recreation planning,site selection and feasibility,shoreline Landscape Architect design, master planning, and campus planning. Her responsibilities at J.A. Brennan Associates include parks and open space planning and design, recreational facilities development,public participation, Education meeting facilitation, specification writing, cost-estimating, construction B.S.Landscape Architecture, documents, and project management. Cornell University, 1989 Project Management Danish International Studies Tanja has over five years of experience in project management. She Program,Architecture&Design has managed numerous projects that have required the coordination of Studies,University of large consultant teams,public agencies,community groups,and Copenhagen,1988 extensive public involvement. Park Planning and Design Professional Tanja has worked as a key team member on many of J.A.Brennan's Licenses/Registration park projects. Her work has included the design of recreation, Landscape Architect educational, and restoration elements in sensitive natural and cultural State of Washington,2001 park projects. Recreation/Trail Planning and Design Experience Tanja has developed a number of trail systems and recreation master 14 years plans,including the Darrington trail system and campground project. While working for Bridger-Teton National Forest in Jackson, Nispre Wyoming, she developed a recreation master plan for a 25-mile portion Joined Firm of the Snake River Corridor,including site analysis,site selection and 1991 recommendations for future development and management. Relevant Expertise Public Participation Tanja has gained a depth of experience in public participation,agency coordination and public workshop facilitation. She has provided Park Planning&Design support in community planning and environmental analysis for many community based projects Environmental Enhancement Project Examples Public Involvement Facilitation Bitter Lake Reservoir Open Space Development—Seattle,WA Project Manager for the design of a plaza adjacent to Seattle's Bitter Lake Reservoir. Project goals included creating a community gathering space and focal point. Tanja conceived the aesthetic design of the space, selecting forms,colors,and materials that work together to create a space that invites people in and symbolizes the use of water and characterizes its properties. Carkeek Park Improvement Project—Seattle,WA Project landscape designer,developed design and contract documents to enhance a salmon stream and associated wetlands for improved fish habitat and educational opportunities. Work included design and construction documents for boardwalks,bridges,picnic nodes, fish habitat structures,trail systems,wetland ponds,and park plaza. j.a. brennan associates,pllc 27 Resumes j.a. Brennan , ,, 41.0 associates Pitt Tanja Wilcox Renton Waterfront Trail—Renton,WA Senior Associate Tanja served as project landscape architect for the design of a new Landscape Architect s urban waterfront trail that transects both private and public property along Lake Washington. Tanja worked on the conceptual design and permitting services Squalicum Creek Park Master Plan—Bellingham,WA As project landscape architect Tanja is working with the City of Bellingham and stakeholders to develop a master plan for a community Urban Design and park and sports filed complex at the site of a former gravel pit. Her Streetscape j responsibilities include park programming,conceptual design,graphics Tanja has experience working production and development of the master plan report. on challenging projects in the urban realm. She has been Chambers Creek Master Site Plan Implementation—Pierce County,WA involved in the aesthetic design Landscape architect for the conceptual design and development of of a bridge in Japan,design of alternatives for a 40-acre waterfront redevelopment of a reclaimed urban plazas and waterfront gathering spaces,integration of i Plant.gravel mine,adjacent to the Chambers Creek Wastewater Treatment art into the landscape,design of boardwalk detailing and Donkey Creek Park Master Plan—Gig Harbor,WA enhancement of an historic Olmsted Boulevard,in addition Project landscape architect for the design of a historic park with stream to the landscape design of enhancement.Tanja's responsibilities include conceptual design,master bicycle trails and streetscapes. planning,conducting stake holder meetings and assisting in public presentations and client co-ordination. *4600 Summit Trails—Bellevue,WA Honors and Awards Project landscape architect responsible for design of pedestrian trail links and trailheads for the Summit Trails neighborhood in Bellevue. Herring's House Park, The Tanja is familiar with trail design standards,particularly for recreation Waterfront Center's trails through greenbelts. Tanja presented at several community International Top Honor Award, 2002 meetings. Taylor Avenue Dock&Public Waterfront Park—Bellingham,WA Presentations/Published Tanja was a key member of the design team retained by the City of Articles Bellingham to design a pedestrian dock and community park connecting neighborhood and parks on Bellingham's waterfront. Tanja "Bridge in Flight:Harmony of developed conceptual plans and assisted in the design detailing of the Style and Structure," park and dock amenities including dock gateway,pavilion,lighting, Presented at the FIB 2002 Osaka Congress,Japan railings,upland plaza and waterfront promenade. "Environmental Metamorphosis Darrington Trail System Master Plan—Darrington,WA on the Duwamish," Responsibilities included coordinating public involvement,agency Daily Journal of Commerce, coordination,and trail and campground design for this 15,000-acre Seattle,July 12,2001 mountainous site on DNR and Forest Service Land. Extensive site analysis resulted in a zoning/site suitability plan for wildlife and sensitive area reserves,and zoning of low to high intensity recreational activity areas. Herring's House Park—Seattle,WA Tanja was assistant project manager and lead landscape architect working with a twelve member multi-disciplinary team to enhance this waterfront site. 28 j.a.brennan associates,plic Resumes Eric Anderson MAKERS architecture+urban design Ni., partner Experience MAKERS, 22 years Other firms, 9 years Education Master of Architecture, University of Washington, 1968 Bachelor of Architecture, University of Illinois, 1966 Registration Architect: Illinois, 1970 Oregon, 1976 Washington, 1976 Experience and Qualifications Eric has over 30 years of architectural design and facility master planning experience. His background includes site master planning and commercial and institutional architecture, and he has designed several award-winning public projects. Much of his recent work has involved the predesign programming of new governmental facilities and the total refurbishment of public buildings, including fire stations, public safety buildings, and community centers. Eric has also specialized in the design of retail commercial and special-needs residential projects in recent years, and is familiar with public design procedures and requirements. His projects have included many of MAKERS' more technically challenging projects, including simultaneous building refits on multiple-building campuses and complete renovations of Historic Register structures for new uses as well as free-standing new architecture. Project examples include: Architectural Design Projects ■ Fire Station 18 and 41: total refit of • Architect for Seattle Parks refits at two brick and concrete 1930's fire Magnolia, Lake City, and Rainier stations in the neighborhoods of Community Centers. Ballard and Magnolia, Seattle. • Edmonds Marine Center Buildings are Station 18 became a restaurant and two mixed-use water-related commercial office building; Station 41 was and office buildings designed for the refitted for 40 more years' service as Port of Edmonds, Wash. The total a fire station. project cost was $3.9 million and was • Research and archival addition to the second phase of the Port's 15-year Makah Cultural and Research Center, Marina redevelopment plan. Neah Bay, WA. This 12,000 s.f. • Architect for three consecutive refits facility was designed to provide a of Highline Community Center for King permanent repository and study facility County Parks Department: 1988 shell for the 100,000 artifacts found at the refits, 1992 ADA compliance refits, Tribe's Ozette and Hoko River and. archeological sites. • • Visiting Nurses Services: total refit Predesign scoping for Ellensburg for of 45,000 s.f. 1930's 3-story bakery its new city hall, for Seattle Parks building as new corporate headquarters Dept. for its interpretive center at plus all VNS tenant improvements Discovery Park, for Puget Power for its new interpretive centers at Snoqualmie • Eastbay Marina, Olympia, Wash., is an Falls, and for over $200 million of all-new 1,100-boat marina. MAKERS' Coast Guard facilities construction and master plan called for a 4,800-foot refits. Most Coast Guard projects public esplanade, transient moorage involved developing functional for 50 boats, a 110,000 sf mixed-use programs, schematic site plans, commercial center, 330 units of building designs, and cost estimates condominium housing and a public boat for congressional funding purposes. 14410,0 launch ramp. ■ Architect for Article 93 Code Retrofit of the historic Smith Tower j.a. brennan associates,pile 29 Resumes VIM *1110 David E. Schwartz, PE, LEEDTM AP Civil Associate-in-Charge David Schwartz has 22 years of experience in planning,designing,and coordinating site developments,and public improvements for parks,trails,and waterfront sites.He has designed drainage systems,sanitary sewer and water systems,fire protection systems,streets and highways. His work includes utility analysis and relocations,stormwater detention,water quality enhancements,water storage and distribution,as well as construction support. He is familiar with the permitting processes required for both private and public works projects. Steven J. Underwood Memorial Park(Des Moines Sport Park), Des Moines,WA Civil Associate-in-Charge for a heavily wooded 15-acre site.Phase I Education includes two softball fields and parking.The ultimate build out includes BS Civil Engineering/Oregon State three softball fields,two soccer fields,a central restroom,and a play court University area. Services include water quality,detention,and utility connections for the restroom facility. Registration Trillium Park—Mill Creek Ball Fields, Snohomish County,WA Civil Engineer in Washington,Nevada,and *41110 Civil Associate-in-Charge for development of a four-acre sports park and Oregon,Colorado,and Maryland recreation area. Amenities include a little league ball field,a soccer field with Professional Affiliations artificial turf,a skate park,an announcer's platform,a restroom building with changing rooms,and supporting parking and walkways.Design included American Society of Civil Engineers water and sewer connections for the building,storm drainage,detention,water Society of American Military Engineers quality,and parking lot grading and paving.The underground detention vault Consulting Engineering Council of has approximately 39,700 cubic feet(300,000 gallons)of detention storage. Washington Stipek Park, Bothell,WA LEED'T"Accredited Professional Civil Project Manager for master planning and final design of Phase I park improvements. Services included development of the park play areas and fields.Park design consisted of drainage collection to intercept hillside seepage and route the drainage to an existing drainage ditch along the roadway. Designed frontage improvements: street widening,storm drainage, curb and gutter,sidewalk,and detention. East Hill Park, Kent,WA Civil Project Manager for development of a five-acre community park with picnic shelters,restrooms,trails,play areas,parking lot,and a water amenity. Tambark Creek Park Master Plan,Snohomish County,WA Civil Project Manager for a park master plan including storm drainage, parking lot layout,grading,water and sanitary sewer for two restrooms and 44104 drinking fountains,ballfield irrigation,and access roads. 30 j.a.brennan associates,pllc Resumes ®®��Y#■ SHANNON&WILSON INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS WILLIAM T. LAPRADE, LEG VICE PRESIDENT Geotechnical Principal in Charge B.S.,Geological Sciences,University of Washington,1981 M.A.,Geography,Arizona State University, 1973 Post-Graduate Studies,Engineering. Licensed Engineering Geologist: Washington 2001 Bill Laprade is a licensed engineering geologist in Washington with 31 years'experience. He has spent his entire professional career with Shannon&Wilson,where he is presently a vice president and manages a technical group of geologists and geotechnical engineers. Through his work on large public works projects in glacial soils in the Seattle area,Bill has become one of the leading experts in glacial history,distribution of glacial deposits,and the behavior of glacial soils in the Puget Sound region. His publication,"The Geology of Seattle,Washington," co-authored with Dick Galster,has been a staple for the understanding of the engineering geology and engineering properties of Puget Lowland soils since its publication in 1991. State of Washington,Heritage Park Development,Olympia,WA Bill served as Project Engineering Geologist for geotechnical feasibility studies for the proposed Capitol Green(Heritage Park) development at the State's Capitol Campus. Directed geologic studies to assist the client in developing three concept plans for the proposed park-like area, including steep,unstable slope. Cheasty Boulevard,Seattle,WA Bill managed the geotechnical portion of this redesign of a parking road where seepage was ubiquitous and slope stability ad damaged or threatened the roadway.He performed a geologic reconnaissance,made recommendations,and attended public meetings to explain the geotechnical portions(drainage and retaining walls). Seattle Chinese Garden Stability Evaluation and Analyses,Seattle,WA As Project Manager,Bill reviewed previous geologic and geotechnical work performed at the filled site that borders on unstable slopes,and supervised geologic studies and slope stability analyses for the proposed building sand lake. Eagle Landing Park,Burien,WA Bill evaluated mass wasting characteristics of very steep,unstable shoreline slope to determine the modes of sediment delivery to the shoreline environment. Performed geologic reconnaissance and obtained subsurface information with hand explorations,to interpret the thickness of landslide debris on the hillside,and assessed the relative risk of future instability. Quail Run,Des Moines,WA Bill served as Engineering Geologist for feasibility studies and recommendations for a foot trail system in a geological sensitive area at Quail Run,on the slopes of Joe's Creek in Des Moines. j.a.brennan associates,plIc 31 Summary Summary - Experienced Designers Collaborative Approach J.A. Brennan Associates would like the opportunity to Our designs provide communities with new opportunities provide consulting services for this exciting neighborhood for exploration,discovery, and connection. In addition, park master planning project. Our past experience makes we know the importance of being good listeners. We enjoy us uniquely qualified to provide the City of Renton with a working with the public, stakeholders, municipalities,and master plan for a park that invigorates the neighborhood permitting agencies in order to create successful projects. and creates a place for gathering and playing. We are confident that our collaborative design process will result Efficient Design Process in the creation of a place where the community can enjoy Working together with you,we will develop the master healthy outdoor activities and a beautiful open space. plan,detail design,and construction documents for Heather Downs Park. The new neighborhood park will respond to Creative Design the needs of the community and meet funding development A team of creative designers insures that a wide range of standards. We will capture your vision and express it in possibilities will be considered. Through an exploration of design. We also understand the process required to keep the ideas and our understanding of the site and community we project on track,on schedule,and on budget. will unlock the possibilities of this unique and special site. *41100 EXI'TING CON'OMINIMUM • 412111b, NW11PFENCE ■_� BERM .i s BUFFER PLANTINGS SPECTATOR SPORT COURT SPECTATOR PARKING LAWN PLAZA RAMP CITY OF BURIEN M7=1' NORTH AMBAUM PARK 16' SECTION C-C' 32 j.a.brennan associates,pile CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL I AI#: T ` = Submitting Data: For Agenda of: 3/21/05 Dept/Div/Board.. Community Services/Facilities 0111.0 Staff Contact Peter Renner Ext. 6605 Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Lease Amendment with Eoscene, Inc. Correspondence.. Ordinance Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Issue Paper—Lease Amendment with Eoscene for Study Sessions extended term Information Draft Lease Amendment Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Finance Committee Legal Dept x.... Finance Dept..x... Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... $101,193.75—tenant Transfer/Amendment improvements and commissions. Amount Budgeted $102,000.00 Revenue Generated An additional $749,250 over the 1111101 five-year,three- month life of the lease. Net to the City is$223,500. Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: A tenant on the 4th floor of the 200 Mill Building, Eoscene, Inc., is nearing the end of their original lease term,April 30, 2005. They are seeking a second lease amendment for additional space. Business terms include a brokerage fee of 5%to Eoscene's representing broker, Cushman&Wakefield, and 2 1/2%to our property manager, GVA Kidder Matthews, for a total of$56,193.75. The tenant also requested a$5 per square foot tenant improvement allowance to accommodate the expansion of their space to half of the 6th floor. The allowance will total no more than $45,000. All of these costs will be paid from the rental account. The business terms of the proposed Lease Amendment have been favorably reviewed by our real estate team and by City staff. Legal and Risk Management have reviewed the proposed Lease Amendment document. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the proposed Lease Amendment with Eoscene, Inc. Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh MEMORANDUM CITY OF RENTON COMMUNITY SERVICES 0 Committed to Enriching Lives 0 TO: Tern Briere, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor 'f FROM: Dennis Culp, Community ServicesAdministrator ' STAFF CONTACT: Peter Renner, Facilities Director(x6605) SUBJECT: Lease Amendment with Eoscene, Inc. DATE: March 14, 2005 Issue: Should the Council authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign a Lease Amendment with Eoscene Inc., for space on the 4th and 6th floors of the 200 Mill Building? Recommendation: Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the Lease Amendment. Background: • Eoscene signed an original 3-year lease with the City for part of the 4th floor (3,931 rentable square feet) of the 200 Mill Building in March 2002. As a condition of that lease, the City spent $8,000 on tenant improvements and gave Eoscene use of systems furniture left by a previous tenant. The lease was structured as a full-service lease. • Because of business growth, Eoscene sought a lease amendment for the remaining space on the 4th floor(an additional 2,024 square feet) on a month-to-month basis until the end of the original lease term. No tenant improvements were required. Council approved that amendment in June 2004. • Eoscene retained a broker, Cushman& Wakefield of Washington, to perform a long-term analysis of its space needs. Because Eoscene has grown rapidly and much of their business is conducted in Europe with company employees traveling back and forth, two key components of their space needs were proximity to the '4•1010 airport and reasonable assurance of future expansion space. Terri Briere,Council President March 14,2005 Page 2 of 2 • Compared to the other market proposals they received, the City's proposal for r additional space at the 200 Mill Building had two advantages. The tenant likes the ambiance of the building, and extending the lease eliminated the potential cost of a move. Our broker was able to construct a market-based proposal that is still to the City's advantage in a commercial real estate buyer's market. • The City met the tenant's concerns about future expansion by including a right of first refusal for the remaining space on the 6th floor, as well as all of the space on the 2nd floor. • The business points of the amended lease are as follows: o The current lease rate is $17.04 per square foot. Reflecting the current market, the proposed new rents start at$16.00 per square foot. The rent at the end of the 5-year lease will have increased to $17.50 per square foot. o The parking space allowance per thousand stays the same. o There is a $5 per square foot tenant improvement allowance, with a maximum expenditure of$45,000. The money will be used to construct a demising wall on the 6th floor, as well as electrical and data cabling, lighting, carpeting, painting, and other improvements as necessary. o The lease includes two free months of rent in 2005, also characteristic of a current market deal in the South Sound area. o The amendment contains a 5-year market rate extension option. o The amendment also contains an early termination clause after 38 months. All unamortized brokerage and tenant improvements costs would be recoverable by the City. The tenant pursued this clause in case of exponential growth that could not be accommodated by available space in the 200 Mill Building. Conclusion: Eoscene has been precisely the type of high-tech, entrepreneurial, and responsible tenant that the City had in mind for the 200 Mill Building. Extending their lease term through an amendment provides the City with substantial cash flow and will help sustain Eoscene's successful business model. cc: Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Michael Wilson,Interim Finance/Is Administrator Larry Warren,City Attorney • SECOND AMENDEMENT TO LEASE This Second Amendment to Lease(the "Second Amendment") is entered into as of this day of March 2005 by and between The City of Renton, Washington, a Washington municipal corporation ("Landlord") and Eoscene Corporation, a Washington corporation ("Tenant"),with reference to the following recitals. A. On or about March 5, 2002 The City of Renton, Washington, a Washington municipal corporation ("Landlord") and Tenant entered into an Office Lease (the "Original Lease") for that certain premises commonly know as Suite 400 (the Original Premises") located on the fourth floor of the 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, Washington (the `Building"). The Original Lease was amended by the First Amendment to Lease dated June 14, 2004. The Original Lease and First Amendment are hereinafter referred to as the "Lease". Pursuant to the Lease, Tenant now leases Suite 400 and Suite 410 comprising approximately 5,955 rentable square feet in the Building(the "Premises"). B. Tenant and Landlord hereby agree to extend the term of the lease and expand the Premises to include approximately 3,045 rentable square feet of additional area on the Sixth Floor (Suite 600) in the 200 Mill Avenue Building ("The Expansion Premises") effective March 1,2005. Landlord and Tenant agree to extend the term,redefine Article 1 ( c ) of the Original lease to define the Premises; Article 1 (e) of the Original Lease to define Tenant's new share of the Building and define the Additional Minimum Monthly Rent to be paid by Tenant for the Expansion Premises;provide a lease termination option and provide a tenant improvement allowance for interior improvements and space planning; redefine the Base Year in 1 (k) and provide a First Right of Offer on expansion space. C. Landlord and Tenant wish to amend the Lease on the Lease on the terms and conditions set forth below. NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged,the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. "Expansion Premises." Effective March 1, 2005, Tenant shall lease Suites 400, 410 and add Suite 600 comprising 3,045 rentable square feet in the 200 Mill Avenue Building. Effective March 1, 2005 Article 1 CO of the Original Lease shall be adjusted to total 9,000 rentable square feet. 2. Term. The Term of the Original Lease shall be extended for a period of five (5) years and two (2) months, commencing May 1, 2005 through June 30, 2010. The new Lease Expiration Date defined in Article 1 (g) shall be June 30,2010. 3. "Minimum Monthly Rent"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Lease, Section 1 (i) of the Original Lease is amended to provide for the payment of the following Additional Minimum Monthly Base Rent for the Expansion Premises: Period Monthly Amount Feb 1,2005 to Feb 28, 2005 $8,564.85 Per month Mar 1,2005 to Apr 30,2006 $0.00 Per month May 1, 2006 to June 30,2006 $12,000.00 Per month July 1, 2006 to June 30,2007 $12,187.50 Per month July 1,2007 to June 30,2008 $12,375.00 Per month July 1, 2008 to June 30,2009 $12,750.00 Per month July 1,2009 to June 30,2010 $13,125.00 Per month Rent is payable in accordance with Article 5 of the Original Lease. Rent for any partial month shall be prorated. 4. Tenant's Share. Effective March 1, 2005, with the addition of the Expansion Premises, Article 1 (e) of the Original Lease shall be amended to increase Tenant's share from 12.03%to 18.19%of the Building. 5. Base Year. Effective March 1,2005,Tenant's Base Year as defined in Article 1 (k) of the Original Lease shall be amended to be 2005. 6. Improvements. Tenant hereby accepts the Expansion Premises and Existing Premises on an "as is, where is" basis. The Landlord shall provide a total Tenant Improvement Allowance for interior Tenant improvements to both the fourth floor Suites and sixth floor Suite, including architectural work totaling $5.00 per rentable square foot, to be used by Tenant to construction for interior improvements prior to December 31, 2005. Said allowance shall total $45,000.00. Landlord and Tenant shall agree upon the floor plan developed by the Architect prior to construction work within the Premises. All improvements shall be per prescribed building standards for the 200 Mill Avenue Building. Landlord's Managing Agent shall assist Tenant to oversee and coordinate the construction work within the Premises on behalf of the Tenant. In the event the Tenant Improvement work is not initiated and contracted for prior to December 31, 2005, the Landlord shall retain any unused portion of the Tenant Improvement allowance. *4401 Landlord shall, as part of the allowance, provide keys and building standard signage for the sixth floor premises. 7. Confidentiality. Tenant agrees not to disclose the terms and conditions of this Second Amendment to any person or entity other than its attorney, including, but not limited to the other tenants of the Building. Nothing contained in this section shall prevent Tenant from producing this Second Amendment in a legal proceeding if such production is legally required of tenant, Tenant acknowledges and agrees that it shall be responsible to Landlord for any damages Landlord may incur due to Tenant's breach of this section. 8. Conflict. If there is a conflict between the terms and conditions of this Second Amendment and the terms and conditions of the Lease, the terms and conditions of this Second Amendment shall control. Except as modified by this Second Amendment, the terms and conditions of the Lease shall remain in full force and effect. Capitalized terms included in this Second Amendment shall have the same meaning as capitalized terms in the Original Lease unless otherwise defined herein. 9. Authority. The persons executing this Second Amendment on behalf of the parties hereto represent and warrant that they have the authority to execute this Second Amendment on behalf of said parties and that said parties have the authority to enter into this Second Amendment. 10. Brokers. Landlord and Tenant acknowledge that GVA Kidder Mathews represents the Landlord in this Transaction and both Kevin Smith and Garth Olsen of Cushman &Wakefield of Washington represent the Tenant. There are no other brokers party to this Second Amendment Transaction. Tenant and Landlord each represent and warrant to the other that neither has had any dealings or entered into any agreements with any person, entity, broker or finder in connection with the negotiation of this Second Amendment, and no broker,person, or entity is entitled to any commission or finder's fee in connection with the negotiation of this Second Amendment other than named above, and Tenant and Landlord each agree to indemnify, defend and hold the other harmless from and against any claims, damages, costs, expenses, attorneys' fees or liability for compensation or charges which may be claimed by any such broker, finder or other similar party of reason of any dealings, actions or agreements of the indemnifying party. 11. Option to Extend Landlord hereby grants to Tenant the right, at its sole and personal option,to extend the Term for a period of five(5)years commencing July 1,2010, and expiring June 30,2015 (the "Extended Term")upon each and all of the following terms and conditions: a) Tenant gives to Landlord, and Landlord actually receives, at least six (6) months (but not more than nine (9) months) prior to the Expiration Date a written notice (the "Notice of Exercise") of the exercise of the option to extend the Term, time being of the essence (i.e., the Notice of Exercise must be received by Landlord between October 1, 2009 and December 31, 2009. If the Notice of Exercise is not so given and received, then this option shall automatically expire and this Lease shall terminate on the Expiration Date(June 30,2009). Now (b) Tenant is not in default under this Lease either at the time the Notice of Exercise is given and received or as of the date that the Extended Term would commence. (c) All of the terms and conditions of this Lease shall apply, except where specifically modified by this option. (d) The Minimum Monthly Rent payable during the option term shall be the Market Rate on the date the option term commences. (e) The term "Market Rate" shall mean the annual amount per rentable square foot that a willing, comparable renewal tenant would pay and a willing, comparable landlord of a similar office building would accept at arm's length for similar space, giving appropriate consideration to the following matters: (i) annual rental rates per rentable square foot; (ii) the type of escalation clauses (including, but without limitation, operating expense, real estate taxes, and CPI) and the extent of liability under the escalation clauses (i.e., whether determined on a "net lease" basis or by increases over a particular base year or base dollar amount); (iii)rent abatement provisions reflecting free rent and/or no rent during the lease term; (iv) length of lease term; (v) size and location of premises being leased; (vi) the amount of any tenant improvement or refurbishment allowances being provided by similar landlords to similar renewal tenants and (vii) other generally applicable terms and conditions of tenancy for similar space. The Market Rate may also designate periodic rental increases, a new Base Year and similar economic adjustments. The Market Rate shall be the Market Rate in effect as of the beginning of the option period, even though the determination may be made 'e✓ in advance of that date, and the parties may use recent trends in rental rates in determining the proper Market Rate as of the beginning of the option period. (f) If Tenant exercises the Extension Option, Landlord shall determine the Market Rate by using its good faith judgment. Landlord shall provide Tenant with written notice of such amount within fifteen (15) days after Tenant exercises its Extension Option. Tenant shall have fifteen (15) days ("Tenant's Review Period") after receipt of Landlord's notice of the new rental within which to accept such rental. In the event Tenant fails to accept in writing such rental proposal by Landlord, then such proposal shall be deemed rejected, and Landlord and Tenant shall attempt to agree upon such Market Rate, using their best good faith efforts. If Landlord and Tenant fail to reach agreement within thirty (30) days following Tenant's Review Period ("Outside Agreement Date"), then each party shall place in a separate sealed envelope their final proposal as to the Market Rate, and such determination shall be submitted to arbitration in accordance with subsections (i) through (v) below. In the event that Landlord fails to timely generate the initial notice of Landlord's opinion of the Market Rate, then Tenant may commence such negotiations by providing the initial notice,in which event Landlord shall have fifteen (15) days("Landlord's Review Period") after receipt of Tenant's notice of the new rental within which to accept such rental. In the event Landlord fails to accept in writing such rental proposed by Tenant,then such proposal shall be deemed rejected, and Landlord and Tenant shall attempt in good faith to agree upon such Market Rate, using their best good faith efforts. If Landlord and Tenant fail to reach agreement within thirty (30) days following Landlord's Review Period (which shall be, in such event, the "Outside Agreement Date" in lieu of the above definition of such date), then each party shall place in a separate sealed envelope their final proposal as to Market Rate, and such determination shall be submitted to arbitration in accordance with Nes# subsections(i)through (v)below. 12. Arbitration of Disputes (a) A representative of Landlord and a representative of Tenant shall meet with each other within five (5) business days after the Outside Agreement Date and exchange their sealed envelopes and then open such envelopes in each other's presence. If Landlord and Tenant do not mutually agree upon the market rate within one (1) business day of the exchange and opening of envelopes, then, within ten (10) business days of the exchange and opening of envelopes, Landlord and Tenant shall agree upon and jointly appoint a single arbitrator who shall by profession be a real estate broker or agent who shall have been active over the five (5) year period ending on the date of such appointment in the leasing of commercial office buildings similar to the Premises in the geographical area of the Premises. Neither Landlord nor Tenant shall consult with such broker or agent as to his or her opinion as to the market rate prior to the appointment. The determination of the arbitrator shall be limited solely to the issue of whether Landlord's or Tenant's submitted Market Rate for the premises is the closest to the actual Market Rate for the Premises as determined by the arbitrator, taking into account the requirements for determining Market Rate set forth herein. Such arbitrator may hold such hearings and require such briefs as the arbitrator, in his or her sole discretion, determines is necessary. In addition, Landlord or Tenant may submit to the arbitrator with a copy to the other party within five (5) business days after the appointment of the arbitrator any market data and additional information such party deems relevant to the determination of the market rate ("RR Data"), and the other party may submit a reply in writing within five (5)business days after receipt of such RR Data. (b) The arbitrator shall, within thirty (30) days of his or her appointment, reach a decision as to whether the parties shall use Landlord's or Tenant's submitted Market Rate and shall notify Landlord and Tenant of such determination. (c) The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding upon Landlord and Tenant. (d) If Landlord and Tenant fail to agree upon and appoint an arbitrator, then the appointment of the arbitrator shall be made by the presiding judge of the court having jurisdiction over the parties. (e) The cost of the arbitration shall be paid by Landlord and Tenant equally. 13. Early Termination: Provided Tenant is not in material default of the Lease and has faithfully performed under all provisions of the Lease,Tenant shall have the one time right to terminate this Lease Agreement, after the conclusion of the 38th month of the Lease Term, subject to Tenant performing the following: (a) Tenant must provide a minimum of three (3) months advance written notice of Lease Termination to the Landlord. This shall be the "specified date" of the termination notice, notifying Landlord of Tenants intent to terminate the Lease. Landlord must receive notice from Tenant on or before March 31, 2008 that Tenant intends to terminate this Lease after the conclusion of the 36th month of the Lease Term (June 30, 2008). If tenant does not elect to terminate this lease, and provide written notice to Landlord on the specified date, then the Lease shall remain in full force and effect through the expiration date,June 30, 2010. (b) Tenant must repay to Landlord, one month prior to the Termination Date, all unamortized costs associated with this Lease Transaction, including all unamortized brokerage fees and all unamortized Tenant Improvement Costs, which will be amortized at an interest rate of eight percent (8%) over the sixty- two month lease term. Landlord and Tenant agree that the Tenant Improvement costs related to this transaction are $5.00 per square foot of rentable area leased, or$45,000. 14. Right of First Refusal. Landlord hereby grants to Tenant the right of first refusal to lease the space immediately adjacent to the Premises on the Sixth floor of the 200 Mill Avenue Building, and on the second floor of the Building, which space measures approximately 2,960 rentable square feet on the 6th floor and 4,600 rentable square feet that is available for lease on the second floor during the Term on the following terms and conditions. Such right of first refusal shall be subject and subordinate to any rights of first refusal, rights of first offer, extension options or expansion options currently held by any other tenants in the Building. Any space that becomes available on the Sixth floor (west side) or Second Floor of the Building shall hereinafter be referred to as the "RFR Space". If Landlord presents an offer to a third party to lease all or any part of the RFR Space, Landlord shall notify Tenant in writing of all of the material terms of the offer. Tenant shall then have five(5)business days in which to notify Landlord in writing that it irrevocably 'void elects to lease the space in question on the exact terms offered to the third party (including the proposed term of the lease), with the sole exception that Tenant may change the tenant improvements to be provided by Landlord, if any, with the understanding that Landlord will not be obligated to pay more for Tenant's tenant improvements than Landlord would have been obligated to pay for the third party's tenant improvements. If Tenant fails to deliver to Landlord such written notice within such deadline, Tenant shall be deemed to have waived its right of first refusal, in which case Landlord shall be free to lease the RFR Space in question to the third party on terms substantially equivalent to the terms offered to Tenant. If subsequent negotiations with the third party yield material changes to the terms offered to Tenant, Landlord shall be required to reoffer the RFR Space in question to Tenant in the manner provided above, with the exception that Tenant shall be required to respond within three(3)business days. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereby execute this Second Amendment as of the date first written above. LANDLORD The City of Renton,Washington, a Washington municipal corporation By: *.wid Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Its: Attest: By: Bonny Walton Its: TENANT Eoscene Corporation, a Washington corporation By: Its: By: Its: Exhibit A (Depiction of Expansion Space) 'rrr.► EXHIBIT B LANDLORD'S WORK Noire WORK LETTER AGREEMENT (Improvement Allowance) This Work Letter Agreement ("Agreement") is attached to the Lease (the "Lease") covering certain premises (the "Premises") more particularly described in the Lease. In consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained, Landlord and the Tenant hereby agree as follows: 1. TENANT IMPROVEMENT COORDINATOR. Landlord and Tenant shall each designate a tenant improvement representative. All communication concerning the tenant improvements shall be directed to the appropriate party's tenant improvement representative. 2. BASE BUILDING. Landlord has previously completed all base building work at the Premises and the Building. Except for the funding of the Improvement Allowance, Landlord shall have no obligation to make additional improvements to the Premises at Landlord's expense. 3. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 3.1 SPACE PLAN. Landlord and Tenant shall meet with landlord's architect to develop a mutually agreeable space plan to outlined the requested improvements, hereinafter, (the"Space Plan"). 3.2 PLANS. Based on the approved Space Plan, Tenant shall cause to be prepared and to be submitted to Landlord for approval detailed plans, specifications and working drawings Neer ("Plans") for the construction of Tenant's leasehold improvements to the Premises ("Improvements"). The Plans shall be prepared by an architect mutually agreed to by Landlord and Tenant. As used herein, the term "Improvements" shall include all work to be done in the Premises pursuant to the Plans, including,but not limited to: demolition work,partitioning, doors, ceiling, floor coverings, wall finishes (including paint and wallcoverings), window coverings, electrical (including lighting, switching, telephones, outlets, computer and special electrical equipment, etc.), plumbing, heating, ventilating and air conditioning, fire protection, sprinklers, alarms, cabinets and other millwork. Tenant shall submit the Plans to Landlord for approval. Within five (5) days after receipt by Landlord of the Plans, Landlord (i) shall give its written approval with respect thereto, or (ii) shall notify Tenant in writing of its disapproval and state with specificity the grounds for such disapproval and the revisions or modifications necessary in order for Landlord to give its approval. Within five (5) days following Tenant's receipt of Landlord's disapproval, Tenant shall submit to Landlord for approval the requested revisions or modifications. Within five (5) days following receipt by Landlord of such revisions or modifications, Landlord shall give its written approval with respect thereto or shall request other revisions or modifications therein (but relating only to the extent Tenant has failed to comply with Landlord's earlier requests). The preceding sentence shall be implemented repeatedly until Landlord gives its approval to Tenant's Plans. Tenant acknowledges that Landlord's review and approval of the Plans is not conducted for the purpose of determining the accuracy and completeness of the Plans, their compliance with applicable codes and governmental regulations or their sufficiency for purposes of obtaining a building permit if so required, all of which shall remain the responsibility of Tenant and Tenant's space planner and architect. 4. SPECIFICATIONS FOR BUILDING STANDARD IMPROVEMENTS. Specifications and details for building standard improvements("Standards")are available upon request. Except as specified in section 5 below, the Space Plan and Plans shall be consistent with the Standards, and no deviations shall be permitted from the Standards without Landlord's consent as set forth in section 5 below. 5. GROUNDS FOR DISAPPROVAL. The Tenant may request deviations from the Standards for Improvements provided that the deviations ("Non-Standards") shall not be of lesser quality than the Standards. Landlord shall not be required to approve any Non-Standards that are not acceptable to Landlord,in Landlord's sole and absolute discretion. 6. IMPROVEMENT COST AND ALLOWANCE. 6.1 COST BREAKDOWN. Landlord's agent shall assist Tenant in procuring bids, and shall provide the Tenant with a breakdown of the estimated total cost of the Improvements ("Cost Breakdown"), including, without limitation: construction cost of the Improvements; if the Tenant and Landlord have employed Landlord's architect and/or engineers, the architectural and engineering fees relating to the preparation and review of the Space Plan and the Plans (inclusive of all design work above and below the ceiling); governmental agency plan check, permit and other fees; sales and use taxes; testing and inspection costs; and construction fees (including general contractor's overhead and supervision fees and the construction supervisory fee referred to in section 7.3 hereof). The Cost Breakdown shall not include the cost of computer or telephone wiring or any cost of purchasing furniture, fixtures or equipment (collectively, "FF&E"), and the cost of all FF&E shall be paid by the Tenant, at the Tenant's sole expense. References to or depictions of FF&E on the Space Plan or the Plans shall not be interpreted to entitle the Tenant to use any portion of the Improvement Allowance to pay costs or expenses associated with the purchase or installation of FF&E. Nowl 6.2 IMPROVEMENT ALLOWANCE. Landlord hereby grants to the Tenant an "Improvement Allowance" of Forty-five Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($45,000.00), which Improvement Allowance shall be used only for the items specified in the Cost Breakdown (excluding FF&E). In the event that the Cost Breakdown exceeds the Improvement Allowance, the Tenant shall pay to Contractor the sum in excess of the Improvement Allowance within thirty (30) days after Landlord has provided to the Tenant bills from contractors showing that costs in excess of the Improvement Allowance have been incurred. 6.3 COST INCREASES. In the event that the cost of the Improvements increases subsequent to the Tenant's approval of the Cost Breakdown due to the requirements of any governmental agency imposed with respect to the construction of the Improvements or due to any other circumstances, the Tenant shall pay to Landlord the amount of such increase within thirty (30) days of Landlord's written notice; provided, however, that Landlord shall first apply toward such increase any remaining balance in the Improvement Allowance. 6.4 CHANGE IN PLANS AND TENANT DELAY. In the event that the Tenant requests a change in the Plans subsequent to approval of the Cost Breakdown, Landlord shall advise the Tenant of Landlord's estimate of any increases in the cost of the Improvements and any delay such change would cause in the construction of the Improvements (the "Estimate"). The Tenant shall approve or disapprove such change within five (5) days after receiving Landlord's Estimate. In the event that the Tenant approves such change, the Tenant shall accompany its approval with payment in the amount of any cost increase resulting from such change; provided, however, that Landlord shall first apply toward such increase any remaining balance in the Improvement Allowance. Landlord shall have the right to decline the Tenant request for a change in the approved Plans if the change is inconsistent with sections 3, 4 or 5 above. Any delay in err completing the construction of the Improvements resulting from any of the following shall constitute "Tenant Delay": (a) the Tenant's failure to respond within the time frames set forth herein(e.g., failure to approve or disapprove the Cost Breakdown in 5 days), (b)changes made by the Tenant to the approved Plans (e.g., requesting that a wall be relocated during construction), (c) the Tenant's request to use a Non-Standard that delays construction (e.g., use of a carpet that is not presently available) or(d) any other act that as defined as Tenant Delay in this Work Letter Agreement. The Tenant shall pay to Landlord an amount equal to$500.00 for each day of Tenant Delay. Landlord and the Tenant agree that the foregoing payment constitutes a fair and reasonable estimate of the damages Landlord will incur as the result of a Tenant Delay. Within thirty (30) days after Landlord tenders possession of the Premises to the Tenant, Landlord shall notify the Tenant of Landlord's reasonable estimate of the date Landlord could have delivered possession of the Premises to the Tenant but for the Tenant Delays. After delivery of said notice, the Tenant shall pay to Landlord the amount described above for the period of Tenant Delay. 6.5 NO REFUND. If the actual cost of the Improvements does not exceed the Improvement Allowance, the unused portion of the Improvement Allowance shall not be paid or refunded to the Tenant or be available to the Tenant as a credit against any obligations of the Tenant under the Lease or Second Amendment. Any portion of the Improvement Allowance not expended prior to the date that is one (1) year after the date of the Second Amendment shall be retained by Landlord, and the Tenant shall have no further right to the use of such unused portion of the Improvement Allowance. 7. CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS. 7.1 CONSTRUCTION. Within a reasonable period following approval of the Cost Breakdown by the Tenant, and after payment of any sum required under section 6.2 above, Landlords agent and Tenant shall instruct the contractor to secure a building permit, if so required and to commence construction of the Improvements. 7.2 COMPLETION. Landlords agent and Tenant shall endeavor to cause the contractor to substantially complete construction of the Improvements in a diligent and expeditious manner, but Landlord shall not be liable for any loss or damage as a result of delays in construction of the Improvements within the Premises. 7.3 CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISORY FEE. The cost of the Improvements shall include a construction supervisory fee payable to Landlords agent equal to four percent (4%) of the total cost of constructing the Improvements. 8. INCORPORATION. This Agreement is and shall be incorporated by reference in the Lease Agreement . Prior Agreements. This Work Letter,together with the Lease, contains the entire agreement of the parties with respect to any matters covered or mentioned in this Work Letter and no prior agreements or understandings pertaining to any such matter shall be effective for any purpose. No provision of this Work Letter may be amended or added to except in writing signed by the parties hereto or their respective successors and assigns in interest. This Work Letter shall not be effective or binding upon any party until fully executed by both parties hereto. Exhibit 1 to Work Letter Agreement (Space Plan) CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: �� • Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works For Agenda of: March 21, 2005 Dept/Div/Board.. Development Services Division Staff Contact Juliana Fries x:7278 Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. LAURELHURST PHASE 1 FINAL PLAT Correspondence.. File No. LUA 04-160, FP (LUA 04-063, PP) Ordinance X 15.7 acres located at the west side of Duvall Ave NE at Resolution NE 2"d Street. Old Business Exhibits: New Business 1. Resolution and legal description Study Sessions 2. Staff report and recommendation Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Legal Dept X Council concur Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: N/A Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The recommendation for approval of the referenced final plat is submitted for Council action. Laurelhurst Phase 1 divides 15.7 acres into 69 single-family residential lots with water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, street lighting, curb and gutter, sidewalks and street improvements. Design and construction of utilities, lighting and pavement will be approved, accepted or deferred(and a security device posted) as required through the Board of Public Works prior to recording the plat. All conditions placed on the preliminary plat by the City of Renton will be met prior to recording of the plat. Release the Utilities Easement recorded per King County recording number 8003240430. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1. Approve Laurelhurst Phase 1 Final Plat, LUA 04-160, FP, with the following conditions and adopt the resolution. a) All mitigation fees shall be paid prior to the recording of the plat. b) All plat improvements shall be either constructed or deferred to the satisfaction of the City staff prior to the recording of the plat. 2. Release the Utilities Easement recorded under recording number 8003240430. CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON —fl RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, APPROVING FINAL PLAT (LAURELHURST PHASE 1; FILE NO. LUA- 04-160FP). WHEREAS, a petition for the approval of a final plat for the subdivision of a certain tract of land as hereinafter more particularly described, located within the City of Renton, has been duly approved by the Planning/Building/Public Works Department; and WHEREAS, after investigation, the Administrator of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department has considered and recommended the approval of the final plat, and the approval is proper and advisable and in the public interest; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety, and general welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or Now roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools, schoolgrounds, sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the public use and interest will be served by the platting of the subdivision and dedication; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION L The above findings are true and correct in all respects. SECTION IL The final plat approved by the Planning/Building/Public Works Department pertaining to the following described real estate, to wit: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth Noir 1 RESOLUTION NO. (The property, consisting of approximately 15.7 acres, is located in the vicinity of Duvall Avenue NE, west of NE 2 Street) is hereby approved as such plat, subject to the laws and ordinances of the City of Renton, and subject to the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department dated March 10, 2005. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2005. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2005. • Nwid Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.1099:3/10/05:ma 2 EXHIBIT A CORE DESIGN, INC. 4401,, BELLEVUE WA 98007 Core Project No: 02052 03/02/05 Legal Description PARCEL 1: THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON; • EXCEPT THE EAST 20 FEET THEREOF CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY FOR ROAD PURPOSES BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 1799641. PARCEL 3A: PARCEL A, CITY OF RENTON LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LUA-04-113-LLA, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 20041202900026. PARCEL 4: THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER; EXCEPT THE EAST 190 FEE'T THEREOF; fir' TOGETHER WITH THE NORTH 30 FEET OF THE EAST 190 FEET OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER; EXCEPT THE EAST 20 FEET THEREOF FOR ROAD; ALL IN SECTION 15,TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST,WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON. PARCEL 5A: LOTS 1, 2, 3 AND 4, KING COUNTY SHORT PLAT NO. 179143, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO.7910180905 BEING A PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 15,TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST,WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE WEST 7.5 FEET THEREOF FOR ROAD PARCEL 6: LOTS 1,2 AND 3, KING COUNTY SHORT PLAT NO.678160, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 7810171032, SAID SHORT PLAT BEING A SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 15,TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST,WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON. C:\Documents and Settings\jsitthidet\Local Settings\Temp\MXLibDir\02052L28.doc I Y NE 4114 Y ST Q f SE 12'3144 PL LINE 3RD CT �� 17. 04 �' 4PEPL _ 1 _` NE 1ND ST NE SID ST NE 1ST PL A Silt N N 1111 g! Q 6 SE 1ST PL `� a a Se it SE 1 STH ST El I SE 13811-1 ST $� I SE 1.38114 ST A8E 138714 Pt. .1,A f- RENTON SE 139TH 13T -Tri sod 1 SE 140114 ST I 141ST `t L lb 8 . SE 142ND ST Ili VICINITY MAPler N.T.S. LAURELHURST PAGE PHASE 110F 1. VICINITY MAP 14711 NE 291h tIoce Suite t A7 COIRE ,Washington 98007 4d X88 78 425.885.7963 loirosiosoeei DESIGN ENGINEERING . PLANNING - SURVEYING JCOE3 IV CO- 42052 • '41010 ' DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION BUILDING/PLANNING/PUBLIC WORKS CITY OF RENTON STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS APPLICANT: Stephen J. Schrei Laurelhurst Phase 1 Final Plat. File: LUA 04-160FP LOCATION: West side of Duvall Ave NE at NE rd Street. Section 15,Twp. 23 N., Rng 5 E. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Final Plat for 69 single-family residential lots with water, sanitary sewer, storm, street and lighting. RECOMMENDATION: Approve With Conditions FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS &RECOMMENDATION 'Nippy Having reviewed the record documents in this matter, staff now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Stephen Schrei, filed a request for approval of Laurelhurst Phase 1, a 69-lot Final Plat. 2. The yellow file containing all staff reports, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit No. 1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official, issued a Determination on Non-Significance-Mitigated on July 19,2004 for the subject proposal. 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located at the west side of Duvall Ave NE at NE rd Street. The new plat is located in Section 15,Twp.23 N.,Rng 5 E. 6. The subject site is comprised of 10 parcels totaling 15.7 acres. 7. Within the site, there is a 10-foot Utilities Easements to the City of Renton, recorded under King County recording number 8003240430. This easement is no longer necessary since new water and sewer mains are being installed along the new streets interior to the plat. 8. The Preliminary Plat (LUA-04-063) was approved by the City of Renton Council on September 27,2004. 9. The site is zoned Residential 8 DU/AC(R-8). 10. The Final Plat complies with both the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan. 11. The Preliminary Plat was subject to a number of conditions as a result of both environmental review and plat review. The applicant complied with the conditions imposed by the ERC: 1. The applicant shall comply with the "Geotechnical Engineering Study"prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc, dated January 28, 2004 regarding slope fill placement as discussed on Page 15 and illustrated on Plate 3 of the document. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be reviewed and approved by Development Services during construction, utility work and building construction. The applicant complied with the condition during construction and utility work. In addition a geotechnical engineer directed all slope placement within the detention pond. During building construction a special inspection from the geotechnical engineer on record will be required for any structural fill in building pad. 2. The project shall be required to be designed and comply with the Department of Ecology(DOE) Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. The project design and construction of Phase 1 complies with the DOE requirements for Erosion and Sediment Control. 3. If the applicant chooses to direct all site runoff to the one detention/water quality pond proposed to be located in the southwest corner of the site, this detention pond must provide additional on-site detention so that peak flows to the west sub-basin are not increased. The single pond shall be required to compensate for additional runoff by limiting the total developed runoff rate to the pre-developed condition of its original sub-basin (west). The satisfaction of this requirement is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of utility/construction permits. The project was designed so that the single pond will accommodate the runoff from the east and west basins.Enlargement of the pond was provided to comply with the condition.The condition was met. 4. The project shall comply with the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Level 2 flow control) and water quality improvements. The project complied with the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual, and provided flow control Level 2—for detention and basic water quality. 5. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $488.00 per new single-family lot. The fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. °fir►. The Fire Mitigation Fee for lots within Phase 1 will be paid prior to recording Phase 1. 6. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Traffic Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each new average daily trip associated with the project. The fee shall be paid prior to recording of the final plat. The Transportation Fee for lots within Phase 1 will be paid prior to recording of Phase 1. 7. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per new single-family lot. The fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. The Parks Mitigation Fee for lots within Phase 1 will be paid prior to recording of Phase 1. 8. The applicant shall delineate, label and note on the face of the final plat a 50 foot buffer from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of Maplewood Creek. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. The 50-foot buffer is shown and noted on the face of the plat. 9. During site preparation and construction of improvements and residences, the applicant shall install silt fencing with brightly colored construction flags to indicate the boundaries of the stream/creek buffer. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division and be completed prior to the issuance of construction/utility permit. An orange construction fence is shown on the approved civil plans and was installed by the contractor. 10. After the development of roadway and utility improvements, the applicant shall install permanent fencing (i.e. split rail fence or other approved barrier) and signage along the entire edge of the stream/creek buffer. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the recording of the final plat. Fencing and signage along the edge of the stream/creek buffer will be installed prior to recording. 11. In addition,the applicant has complied with the conditions imposed as a result of Preliminary Plat: 1. The applicant shall place a note on the face of the final plat indicating the following yard orientations for these lots: a) Lot 51 shall have the front yard face Duvall Ave NE with lot accessed from the side street. b) Lots 52 and 53shall have 20 foot front yards facing shared driveway. c) Lot 131 shall have the front yard facing Road B. Applicant noted on the face of the plat the setback and yard orientation referring to items "a" and "b" above. Item "c" refers to a lot that lies outside Phase 1 boundary. 2. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and complete all inspections and approvals for all buildings located on the property prior to the recording of the final plat per phase. The satisfaction of this requirement is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Project Manager. All buildings located within Phase 1 limits have been removed and the demolition permits are finaled. 3. No lot is to gain direct access to Duvall Ave NE either north or south of the intersection with NE 2"d Street. This note shall be placed on the face of the final plat. Applicant noted on the face of the plat that no lot will gain direct access to Duvall Ave NE. 4. Street improvements, including but not limited to pavement, lights, and sidewalk, along NE 2nd Street shall extend to the east to existing SE 132nd Street. The improvements shall be installed prior to recording of the final plat. This shall include the intersection of NE 2"d Street and Bremerton, both sides of Duvall Ave NE and NE 2"d Street east and west of Duvall Ave NE. Street improvements are being installed. All plat improvements within Phase 1 of Laurelhurst will be completed and accepted by the public works inspector, or *4111+0 deferred through the Board of Public Works prior to recording of Laurelhurst Phase 1 plat. S. A homeowner's association or maintenance agreement shall be created concurrently with the recording of the final plat in order to establish maintenance responsibilities for all shared improvements, including fences, landscaping, utilities, private easements, etc. A draft of the document(s), if necessary, shall be submitted to the City of Renton Development Services Division for review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to recording of the final plat. A Homeowners Association was created and the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions was reviewed and approved by Development Services, and includes the referenced maintenance responsibilities. 6. The applicant shall install a modulated, decorative fence of a quality material, with irrigated landscaping along the entire plat's frontage with Duvall Ave NE. All fencing shall be located and designed to not interfere with sight distances required at the intersections of public streets. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan and fence design to the City's Development Services Division for review and approval prior to installation. The fence and landscaping shall be installed prior to recording of the final plat. The applicant submitted fencing and landscaping plans for review by Development Services. The fence and landscape for the west side of Duvall Ave NE will be installed with Phase 1 of Laurelhurst. Now 7. The applicant shall install a fence of quality material (no chain link, if possible), decorative and modulated with a landscaped visual barrier that includes plant materials which would provide a year-round dense screen within three(3)years from the time of planting along the north property line of Tract M(storm drainage facility). The south, west, and east property lines shall be fenced with solid fencing or other approved landscaped visual barrier. All fencing shall be located and designed to not interfere with sight distances required at intersections. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan and fence design to the City's Development Services Division for review and approval prior to installation. All fences and landscaping shall be installed prior to recording of the final plat. The applicant submitted fencing and landscaping plans for review by Development Services. 8. The applicant shall comply with conditions imposed by ERC. Applicant complied with the above ERC conditions 9. The applicant shall have two years to complete the acquisition, plating and consolidation of Tract B, C, and D with the adjacent lots,proposed lots 21, 22 and 23. This action shall not cost the owners of those adjacent lots any additional funding and the applicant shall bond or otherwise create documents approved by the City Attorney to assure that this occurs. Applicant proposed to record a restrictive covenant for Tracts B, C and D and lots 21, 22 and 23 to ensure the condition is met. The City Attorney has completed the first review of this document. Noe 10. The applicant shall develop Tract U as a full extension of Road C to where the applicant only owns the south 30 feet out to Duvall Ave NE where the applicant shall develop a half street connecting to Duvall Ave NE. The applicant revised the civil drawings and is installing full street improvements along NE la Street (what was the proposed Tract U at preliminary plat). This road will be an additional connection from Bremerton Ave NE to Duvall Ave NE. 11. The applicant shall provide active recreation on at least three of the four largest tracts, Tract A, H, K and T Tracts A, H and K are recreational tracts and are being dedicated to the Homeowner's Association. Tract T lies outside Phase 1 Plat and compliance will condition will be required upon recordation of Phase 2. CONCLUSIONS The Final Plat generally appears to satisfy the conditions imposed by the preliminary plat process and therefore should be approved by the City Council. RECOMMENDATION: Nod 1. The City Council should approve the Final Plat with the following conditions: a) All plat fees shall be paid prior to the recording of the plat. b) All plat improvements shall be either constructed or deferred to the satisfaction of City staff prior to the recording of the plat. 2. Release the Utilities Easements to the City of Renton, recorded under King County recording number 8003240430. SUBMITTED THIS 10`h DAY OF MARCH,2005 1 • it - pLANA FRP . D VELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION cc: Kayren Kittrick LUA-04-160-FP CORE DESIGN, INC. BELLEVUE WA 98007 Core Project No: 02052 03/02/05 Legal Description PARCEL 1: THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 15,TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE EAST 20 FEET THEREOF CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY FOR ROAD PURPOSES BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 1799641. PARCEL 3A: PARCEL A, CITY OF RENTON LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LUA-04-113-LLA, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 20041202900026. PARCEL 4: THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER; EXCEPT THE EAST 190 FEET THEREOF; °fir► TOGETHER WITH THE NORTH 30 FEET OF THE EAST 190 FEET OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER; EXCEPT THE EAST 20 FEET THEREOF FOR ROAD; ALL IN SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST,WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON. PARCEL 5A: LOTS 1, 2, 3 AND 4, KING COUNTY SHORT PLAT NO. 179143, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 7910180905 BEING A PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 15,TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST,WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE WEST 7.5 FEET THEREOF FOR ROAD PARCEL 6: LOTS 1,2 AND 3, KING COUNTY SHORT PLAT NO. 678160, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 7810171032, SAID SHORT PLAT BEING A SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON. C:\Documents and Settings\jsitthidet\Local Settings\Temp\MXLibDir\02052L28.doc NNS Y NE 4T1-1 Y ST I .4 NE 3RD Ct j x SE 123tN PL� _ cid r1..zil NE 2ND pLior _ _ 1 NE ' ST / NE 2ND ST .4i I NE ISr iff 0 1 tic N to 4 6 SE 1ST PL r/4. q 4 . -sE SE 1151'1.1 ST 4 1 Ira SE 136TH ST 3125 . SE 136TH ST J SE 13STN P1. �r�*A. RENTON els. j SE 139T1-i ST Q r( SE M01-1-1 ST / 141ST n I et. 87. ap TN SE 142ND Sr 3 _...,,,,,,,...,,,c,----'-- /r VICINITY MAP NW N.T.S. LAURELHURST PAGE PHASE 1 +�� VICINITY MAP 1 OF J. 4N Ci " p ' es 14717 NE 29th doSuit.107 Ballon%Washington 98007 425.8857877 Fos 425.8857963 DESIGN ENGINEERING , PLANNING - SURVEYING -111 C31 El N+O_ 02+052 I-1 i.,., i 2I H b .l `t )ti 0 ACzocT. t un/70) R e I u:'\ » -I I »c a I 30 . ( s, ra• . 1 , W ,1 11 VK,A 'E ZED Pt i s : e t U a ♦ 1 ueau,m .a Hutt. 1e net A. -1L--------� k 1 rKC IAD ST o. a j I ., p ) I A. F Si a y 3 M Z •S • u Y .T l 3 e N.E 1St C, / i ... I..Ci k I i5 1 Y I S1 l ez ,� pa .e ./ ,k_2...., utI w a as \ ea ' MKT. a le/41 f A.E.1ST T RKTM »ICT 1. N. ATS vie• II I 1 • I d . 1 L. t C:,/, E >s V. W.a WIZ i=toe.MA. LAURELHURST PAGE PHASE 2 PLAT PLAN 1.OF 1 Ilk MPV t 17t 1 NE29rh Ptaaa#]01 CaE Bellevue,Washington 98007 N.T.S. 425.885.7877 Fax 425.885.7963 DESIGN ENGINEERING • PLANNING • SURVEYING Jc Eit NU_ 02©52 • CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL f AI#: +i't(, Submitting Data: For Agenda of: March 21, 2005 Dept/Div/Board.. Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Staff Contact Rebecca Lind(ext. 6588) Agenda Status Consent Subject: Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Ratification of the 2004 Amendments to the Ordinance Countywide Planning Policies Resolution X Old Business Exhibits: New Business Issue Paper Study Sessions Resolution Information King County Correspondence Letter from City of Burien King County Signature Reports with attached GMPC Motion Reports and King County Staff Reports Recommended Action: Approvals: Council Concur. Legal Dept...x Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: NA Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The 2004 Countywide Planning Policy(CPP) amendments were approved by the Growth Management Planning Council September 15, 2004, and ratified by the Metropolitan King County Council on behalf of unincorporated King County on February 14, 2005. Amendments to the CPPs must be ratified by at least 30 percent of the city and county governments representing 70 percent of the population of King County. A city will be deemed to have ratified the amendments unless within 90 days of adoption by King County, the city takes legislative action to disapprove the amendments. There are five issues addressed in the 2004 CPP Amendments. 1) Motion 04-01 Amendments to the Potential Annexation Area(PAA)Map affecting lands within multiple cities (Tukwila,Redmond,Enumclaw, Issaquah)within the existing urban 1/41111 growth area(UGA) and designating a new Urban Separator in Redmond. Lands within the Renton PAA are not included in this action. 2) Motion 04-02 Amendments to the UGA map. One amendment is in Renton's PAA at SE H:\EDNSP\Regional Issues\GMPC\CPPB\04CPPAmendmentAgendabilldoc.doc 184th St. in the Lake Desire neighborhood. This amendment adds the existing Renton Christian Center to the UGA. 3) Motion 04-03 Amendment designating the Burien downtown as an Urban Center as defined in the CPPs. The City of Burien is requesting support of this amendment. Nome 4) Motion 04-04 Technical corrections to growth targets for the West Hill unincorporated area, Tukwila, Kent, Pacific and Auburn. The West Hill unincorporated area was mistakenly not assigned a household target during the last round of updates. A household target of 592 units and capacity of 1,913 units is assigned to the West Hill by this action. 5) Motion 04-05 Map amendments changing the PAA of several jurisdictions. Renton is not affected by these changes. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution supporting GMPC Motions 04-01, 04-02, 04-03, 04-04 and 04-05 amending the Countywide Planning Policies. Sow H:\EDNSP\Regional Issues\GMPC\CPPs\04CPPAmendmentAgendabilldoc.doc CITY OF RENTON _, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: March 14, 2005 TO: Terri Briere, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: 3/. Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler FROM: Alex Pietsch, Administrator klitAe STAFF CONTACT: Rebecca Lind (ext. 6588) SUBJECT: Ratification of 2004 Amendment to the Countywide Planning Policies ISSUE: Ratification of the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) proposed amend- ments to the Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs). RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution ratifying the amendments. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The CPPs are intended to provide a policy framework for all jurisdictions' comprehensive plans in order to provide the regional planning and coordination among local govern- ments required by the Growth Management Act (GMA). The CPPs set forth guidance for the location of growth and infrastructure investment in the region and establish specific employment and housing targets for each jurisdiction. Jurisdictions must adopt land use and zoning to accommodate these targets in their respective plans and development regulations. The GMPC approved these amendments September 15, 2004, and the Metro- politan King County Council adopted them and ratified on behalf of unincorporated King County, February 14, 2005. To become effective, amendments must be ratified by at least 30 percent of the city and county governments representing 70 percent of the population of King County. Jurisdictions opposing the amendments are required to deny the ratification by May 16, 2005. Failure to act is deemed the equivalent of ratification. Renton staff monitored the GMPC review throughout the process. Two of the amend- ments affect Renton. H:\EDNSP\Regional Issues\GMPC\CPPs\2004Amends Ratification Issue.doc 1) Motion 04-02 adds the six-acre Renton Christian Center, located at SE 184th St. to the Renton Potential Annexation Area (PAA), and amends the Urban Growth Boundary to Nov accommodate this change. The City will also be required to amend its Comprehensive Plan in 2005 to reflect this change. The six-acre site is located in the Lake Desire area, and is also included within the proposed Fairwood Incorporation. Property owners requested inclusion in the urban growth boundary to facilitate expansion of the church and school at that location. The map of the affected area is attached to this issue paper as Exhibit 2. King County staff coordinated with Renton staff in the early review of this application. 2) Motion 04-04 is a technical correction to the Household and Growth Targets adopted in 2002. The most significant change is the addition of a 592-unit household target and a reduction in the Renton PAA household target of 237 units. There is also a 1,913-unit household capacity increase listed for the West Hill (identified as Unincorporated King County on Exhibit 1). In 2002, GMA-mandated growth targets were distributed based on four subareas: South County,East County, Sea-Shore, and Rural. Each subarea was assigned a proportional share of total County growth. The West Hill target was inadvertently omitted from the 2002 target distribution. The South County target is 4,935 units for the period 2001- 2022. Identification of a target for the West Hill area resulted in a reallocation of PAA targets through out the South County, but not a change in the total South County target. All other PAA targets were reduced based on the proportional size of each area. The Renton PAA target of 1,976 units was reduced to 1,739 units. Auburn, Des Moines, 'fir Federal Way, Kent, Milton. SeaTac and Tukwila also had reductions in PAA targets (see Exhibit 1). The Renton city target is not affected. The West Hill area land capacity was also not accounted for in the 2002 studies. Capacity is the calculation of the amount of growth that could occur based on zoning and market factors for each unique area and does not reflect any negotiated distribution of growth. The addition of capacity for 1,913 units in the West Hill increased South County capacity from 14,039 units to 15,952 units. Other Amendments: The remaining CPP amendments do not affect Renton and provide needed adjustments to facilitate Growth Management Planning in other jurisdictions. A notable change is the designation of Downtown Burien as an Urban Center. The City of Burien demonstrated its commitment to developing an Urban Center consistent with the CPP, and requests support and ratification of the amendment 04-03, designating Downtown Burien an Urban Center. CONCLUSION The proposed 2004 amendments to the CPP are consistent with the GMA and, where there is a direct impact on the City, the amendments support the Vision for Renton identified in its Comprehensive Plan. Ratification of the amendment package is recommended. While it is not necessary to take formal action, passage of a resolution puts Renton on the record as supporting the amendments and provides a way to track Nam, Renton's position in the future. H:\EDNSP\Regional Issues\GMPC\CPPs\2004Amends Ratification Issue.doc Unincorporated King County within the Exhibit 1 South King County column 2004 Revised Table includes only the West Hill area Revised Table LU-1:King County 2001-2022 Household and Employment Targets *41111m►" Household Housing PAA HH Job Capacity in PAA Job Subareas Capacity in Job Target Target PAA* Target PAA Target South King County Algona 298 108 Auburn 6,003 2,635 815 6,084 252 252 Black Diamond 1,099 2,525 Burien 1,552 1,712 Covington 1,373 900 Des Moines 1,576 5 2 1,695 Federal Way 6,188 3,754 1,161 7,481 134 134 Kent 4,284 1,763 546 11,500 287 287 Milton 50 106 33 1,054 Maple Valley 300 804 Normandy Park 100 67 Pacific 721 127 39 103 --k, Renton 6,198 (5,62- 41M211t 27,597 458 458 SeaTac 4,478 0 0 9,288 0 0 Tukwila 3,200 9 2 16,000 993 993 1 -is Unincorp King County 4,935 1,9113"3 592 2,582 458 458 Total 42,355 4,' 89,500 2,582 2,582 East King County Beaux Arts Village 3 - Bellevue 10,117 184 178 40,000 27 27 Bothell 1,751 603 584 2,000 174 174 Clyde Hill 21 - Hunts Point 1 - lssaquah 3,993 827 802 14,000 1 1 Kenmore 2,325 2,800 Kirkland 5,480 770 747 8,800 221 221 Medina 31 - 4441110te Mercer Island 1,437 800 Newcastle 863 1 1 500 Redmond 9,083 402 390 21,760 21 21 Sammamish 3,842 1,230 Woodinville 1,869 2,000 Yarrow Point 28 - Unincorp King County 6,801 **4,222 **4,099 4,637 **4,193 **4,193 Total 47,645 7,009 6,801 98,527 4,637 4,637 Sea-Shore Lake Forest Park 538 455 Seattle 51,510 92,083 Shoreline 2,651 2,618 Unincorp King County*** 1,670 1,670 1,670 694 1,544 694 Total 56,369 1,670 1,670 95,850 1,544 694 Rural Cities**** Camation 246 75 Duvall 1,037 1,125 Enumclaw 1,927 1,125 North Bend 636 1,125 Skykomish 20 - Snoqualmie 1,697 1,800 Total 5,563 5,250 King County Total 151,932 289,127 *PAA:Potential Annexation Area in Unincorporated King County Urban Area;**Bear Creek UPD;***North Highline ****The Rural Cities'targets are for the current city limits and rural expansion area for each city. Thus the methodology for adjusting targets as annexations occur is not applicable to the rural cities. Editor's Note: Source for 2001 housing and job capacity figures for PAAs is the 2002 King County Buildable Lands evaluation. Subarea unincorporated targets were allocated to PAAs based on proportional capacity. Revised per Motion 04-4,Sept.2004. 2002 Adopted Table Table LO-1:I li g Co n y./041 02111euse r oXc cud° t p ti iie, iftre Household HH Capacity PAA HH Job Capacity PAA Job Subareas Target in PAA* Target Job Target in PAA Target South King County Algona 298 Auburn 5,928 2,635 926 Black Diamond 1,099 Burien 1,552 Covington 1,173 Des Moines 1,576 5 2 Federal Way 6,188 3,754 1,320 Kent 4,284 1,763 619 Milton 50 106 37 Maple Valley 300 Normandy Park 100 Pacific 996 127 45 Renton 6,198 5,622 1,976 SeaTac 4,478 14 5 Tukwila 3,200 13 5 Unincorp King County 4,935 Total 42,355 14,039 4.935 East King County Beaux Arts Village 3 Bellevue 10,117 184 178 Bothell 1,751 603 584 Clyde Hill 21 Hunts Point 1 Issaquah 3,993 827 802 Kenmore 2,325 Kirkland 5,480 770 747 Medina 31 Mercer Island 1,437 Newcastle 863 1 1 Redmond 9,083 402 390 Sammamish 3,842 Woodinville 1,869 Yarrow Point 28 Unincorp King County 6,801 **4222 **4099 Total 47,645 7,009 6,801 Sea-Shore Lake Forest Park 538 Seattle 51,510 Shoreline 2,651 Unincorp King County*** 1,670 1,670 1,670 Total 56.369 1,670 1.670 Rural Cities Carnation 246 Duvall 1,037 Enumclaw 1,927 North Bend 636 Skykomish 20 Snoqualmie 1,697 Total 5,563 Kine County Total 151,932 *PAA:Potential Annexation Area in Unincorporated King County Urban Area;**Bear Creek UPD;***North Highline The Rural Cities'targets are for the current city limits and rural expansion area for each city.Thus the methodology NNW* for adjusting targets as annexations occur is not applicable to the rural cities. 2 UGMPC/02GMPC/Mot02-2.doc - 2 - p ; ,... LI 1 1 I '1!!' I I i.;I T; X4.10.,v., �.;51,.,,,,,T ;7.•.-.. _•J c 4:' Ifo r,i pdi , C '' / N 0 S, Jt, n Rn ' .1 1 1 w;;;:v.;* r K"111'-...to; ;',..' Vi._...... 1 .. W,,,,..44,,„r( Y`:' N t .. f ...+ s�L25\'2 �L .(, 'yr,,}tt + �,�,�r t i �p4'y 4brk� t+�i'^^� .,�v +„ 1 •y/ �]' "� N !.1.ii ` rfr,3.. ) \ r iyl�' ,Iy(, • L.,'.'11#W,_�r t' • \r P et' .. -`.� ;'::� AT , 'i .,t .fl N )' \ : �� 4h i Jt^4(\H ,�§h,x. iY •1f'} "{y., "'1 GaIirvi?, S� aw.i p�tA // I` i � tS.A,�1' S'la. , .':(`.- . '',',4a`,1A-1 , ,,�tn: l ,, \41d L44,;(4 "`, ,,`^,t,t+: ' " \/.. .. ,/` `� II I.• I_ r��JF,1, - 'SC .0C " 1 i$, - )n±',l }�1 w�Ali,,,Y� ,4 rIk?�+., ,1,1 41r , fi�7.u,•1,',q )/' /. ..__./••r... !��..-1- ; P1'fi,�,Y'y; �Ilt/�i�,UE t'; a.4„..4:i. , ,t> r)q•••1 1 Y1.1' t� ,, �� sv .r,�1k4t ,,hl;S ,�� /' .../r\• . ('-:. 1....i I(, 1 ?(�Y` /- WrtsV,Y4�1 11�Y�� f,•�/tl �iy � {{ JF7�e "t I \ ----/..1!...Y'....1� `��.t.�. /' \i,. t jJ�b � .•..11L. t,,,aF�•,,4.,.`".•,,;r,-,o'� y1!,`,:,''''',14,1.!. S' -,IJ�"c{ Wn`Z..M),br,7°"` �;'/ r, (. Vt,-:. J •1%..� •yGf,,,, t('� 11P11l`r4y' . l :4.z.- 47 _ / '+�1 �9, , 7vye�Q i,, "tf, ,!l: •V:`. it '1 .,(I ) ?k •�\--,.;.-).. v'• '',....--11.071.:::_:. i�y 7.iy� .-.4' � I d •(, . / ! I� �S'y y 04 `�; I \I��II is r,',•I �JJJ...-I2 .` ,\-•.'••-..:-;---,C B �q `w\ <0 C 'rY/� !/ I I I I I t ki ' II .\ / j i aryl \(_.L�, •�A.,`J`:A.-.1 "1 •�l •/',� o 4,�ylk .._w. � � > � /,\,,,, �� I I I UI' •/ �.77 I 1 1. . \ / ... 1•. '-\' ,,,:•.,,z;.••... -• z ,.. '\t to m . .... ;. ..._ --•• . .•- • i J.J..1i _i . LL1 I ' .+; \ 12. . -1-1-,-; _C y 1" — C 1,. ..i� p'' �' I 1:3C ic tiie 1 , . _, ... .... ... CDco \ r s V O.C7 lA 7 ._� CTS i .... .. _ co o Cv c ',';, I \ I �,,, o z.i ? O I 1��41 11.. O G • r c • C r' '.L. .7�r i . i I�ti; { Ftawet s :at. b 8 b�j s ro w i I ',',./v.:',„).:1 'r'r.i. 1\ �. I, -. I (4)/,.1:''1:1; r I i•i'') 1"','1 ftfq4 ilN,'ilfiVfiiikk100, II -11 I. til CO 5in 3jE€� $ ii �%'�;•y !.'''.�.,1.1.�.i � I I I � L. '�� ',�4 '�..„,....,)# uee*��,� '� ,is ( �'�'�,r�,,��y ,�A!b 1� Y @{ • .! I I � t...�. J ,' \' I.�J.i .'7.... ,..._..y v i,.ill j i'i i r! 11!"....t—j —7, ( `1 \� + I I j '. , lI i i iz 'F i�'k i"+C\' i ,.k.Q �9 'tYe� t ``�C➢ /. 1 / jj{{(r �F,{-�1.. I ; I L, I `le I, l,��g %),.,,f `.,,44. r a .1-, .„1,•1,;). 1,414,4.1-.p, k 3 p j .j} o r'y� •f" {: 1 'J''• i 1 `' 7'" +oy 7 ',r '• �, "' `,,..„ „ r• rill 88 61{ / . I 1 •j l I c. + 17ti'''� t*,�`F ' {},4t 0 , '.y 6t,'.1 'i ♦,121/1: s il, \; -, .--1'-- �,4:44,:' ».,,� xwpr.�, .lL�,i, .�( r.,.,,,;rt, „y� F34[pJ P ,/�/I I , r,i �44'f 7'4 ,7'YOp 4t�1 _rS 0. t t , '�\* Z C,1iT I LY a //; 4 ' t., l .'`* ik.(IS1�1W.44,\i1�1 �f .."4 4'�e 4it.4',4. �t 9 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, RATIFYING AMENDMENTS TO THE COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A. 210 mandates the development and adoption of Countywide Planning Policies for King County, and WHEREAS, the King County, the City of Seattle, the City of Bellevue and the Suburban Cities of King County have met jointly as the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) to develop and recommend Countywide Planning Policies; and WHEREAS, the City of Renton has ratified the Countywide Planning Policies and subsequent amendments, and WHEREAS, Countywide Planning Policy FW-1 Step 9 provides for an amendment process to change the Planning Policies as may be necessary from time to time, and WHEREAS, On February 14, 2005, the Metropolitan King County Council took action ratifying the proposed amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies including: 1) GMPC Motion 04-01 Amendments to the Potential Annexation Area Map affecting lands within Tukwila, Redmond, Enumclaw, Bellevue, Kirkland, and Bear Creek Urban Planned Development within the existing urban growth area and designating a new Urban Separator in Redmond. 2) GMPC Motion 04-02 Amendments to the Urban Growth Area map adding lands in Issaquah and Renton PAAs to the Urban Growth Area and amending the Urban Growth Boundary. 3) GMPC Motion 04-03 Amendment designating the Burien downtown as an Urban Center as defined in the CPPs. 4) GMPC Motion 04-04 Technical corrections to growth targets for the West Hill unincorporated area, Tukwila, Kent, Pacific and Auburn. 5) GMPC Motion 04-05 Map amendments changing the Urban Growth Areas Map and Urban Growth Area Boundary to add a 29-acre area to the Covington PAA. RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, the amendment process requires ratification of proposed amendments by at least 30 percent of the City and County governments representing 70 percent of the population in King County, and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The above findings are true and correct in all respects. SECTION II. The proposed amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies are consistent with the adopted City Comprehensive Plan and the adopted City Business Plan. SECTION III. The best interests and general welfare of the City of Renton would be served by ratification of Ordinance 15121, 15123, and 15122 (GMPC Motions 04-01, 04-02, 04-03, 04-04, 04-05) as approved by the King County Council and the Growth Management Planning Council. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2004. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2004. `` w Kathy Keolker- Wheeler, Mayor 2 RESOLUTION NO. Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney `vrr 3 RECEIVED King County MAR 7 2005 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING March 4, 2005 The Honorable Kathy Keolker-Wheeler City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mayor Keolker-Wheeler: We are pleased to forward for your consideration and ratification the enclosed amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPP). On February 14, 2005, the King County Council approved and ratified Niw amendments (listed below) on behalf of unincorporated King County. Copies of the King County Council staff reports, ordinances and Growth Management Planning Council motions are enclosed to assist you in your review of these amendments. • Ordinance No. 15121, GMPC Motion Nos. 04-1, 04-2, 04-5, amending the Countywide Planning Policies by amending the urban growth boundary map, the interim potential annexation areas map and the urban separator map. • Ordinance No. 15122, GMPC Motion No. 04-4, amending the Countywide Planning Policies by revising targets for new household and job growth for the period 2002-2022. • Ordinance No. 15123, GMPC Motion No. 04-3, amending the Countywide Planning Policies by designating Downtown Burien as an Urban Center. In accordance with the Countywide Planning Policies, FW-1, Step 9, amendments become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least 30 percent of the city and county governments representing 70 percent of the population of King County according to the interlocal agreement. A city will be deemed to have ratified the amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies unless, within 90 days of adoption by King County, the city takes legislative action to disapprove the amendments. Please note that the 90-day deadline for Noe this amendment is May 16, 2005. If you have any questions about the amendments or ratification process, please contact Paul Reitenbach, Senior Policy Analyst, King County Department of Development and Environmental Services, at 206-296-6705, or Lauren Smith, Lead Staff, King County Council, at 206-296-0352. If you adopt any legislation relative to this action, please send a copy of the legislation by the close of business, May 16, 2005, to Anne Noris, Clerk of the Council, W1039 King County Courthouse, 516 Third Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, 1 // . / Larry Phillips, Chair Ron Sims King County Council King County Executive Nome Enclosures ccY1 ing County City Planning Directors Suburban Cities Association Stephanie Warden, Director, Department of Development and Environmental Services (DDES) Paul Reitenbach, Senior Policy Analyst, DDES Megan Smith, Lead Staff, Growth Management & Unincorporated Areas Committee (GMUAC) Lauren Smith, Lead Staff, Committee of the Whole Letter from City of Burien requesting support will be sent next week We should receive it by e-mail by the 15th, and the Mayor's office should receive it by the 17th . err *air KING COUNTY 1200 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle,WA 98104 � Signature Report .► February 14, 2005 Ordinance 15121 Proposed No. 2005-0045.1 Sponsors Constantine 1 AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to the 2 Countywide Planning Policies; amending the urban growth 3 boundary map, the interim potential annexation areas map 4 and the urban separator map; ratifying the amended 5 Countywide Planning Policies for unincorporated King 6 County; and amending Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as N'"w 7 amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 and Ordinance 10450, 8 Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.040. 9 10 11 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY: 12 SECTION 1. Findings. The council makes the following findings: 13 A. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Growth 14 Management Planning Council recommended King County 2012 -Countywide Planning 15 Policies (Phase I) in July 1992, under Ordinance 10450. Now 1 Ordinance 15121 16 B. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Phase II 17 amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies on August 15, 1994, under Ordinance 18 11446. 19 C. The Growth Management Planning Council met on September-15, 2004, and 20 December 7, 2004, and voted to recommend amendments to the King County 21 Countywide Planning Policies amending the urban growth boundary map, the interim 22 potential annexation areas map and the urban separator map, as shown in Attachments A, 23 B and C to this ordinance. 24 SECTION 2. Ordinance 10450, Section 3,as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 are 25 each hereby amended to read as follows: 26 Phase II. 27 A. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning 28 Policies attached to Ordinance 11446 are hereby approved and adopted. 29 B. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning 30 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027. 31 C. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning 32 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421. 33 D. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning 34 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260. 35 E. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning 36 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415. 37 F. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning 38 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments I through 3 to Ordinance 13858. 2 Ordinance 15121 39 G. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning saw 40 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390. 41 H. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning 42 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391. - 43 I. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning 44 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392. 45 J. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning 46 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14652. 47 K. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning 48 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 14653. 49 L. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012- Countywide Planning 50 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 14654. Now 51 M. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012- Countywide Planning 52 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14655. 53 N. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012- Countywide Planning 54 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 14656. 55 O. The Phase II amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning 56 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment A to Ordinance 14844. 57 P. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning 58 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments A, B and C to this ordinance. 59 SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.040 are 60 each hereby amended to read as follows: 61 Ratification for unincorporated King County. 3 Ordinance 15121 62 A. Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 10450 for the purposes 63 specified are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. 64 B. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 65 10840 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. 66 C. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 67 11061 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. 68 D. The Phase H amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning 69 Policies adopted by Ordinance 11446 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of 70 unincorporated King County. 71 E. The amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning Policies, as 72 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027 are hereby ratified on behalf of the 73 population of unincorporated King County. 74 F. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 75 shown by Attachment Ito Ordinance 12421, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 76 population of unincorporated King County. 77 G. The amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning Policies, as 78 shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 79 population of unincorporated King County. 80 H. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as 81 shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415, are hereby ratified on behalf of 82 the population of unincorporated King County. sed 4 Ordinance 15121 83 I. The amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning Policies, as Noy 84 shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858, are hereby ratified on behalf of 85 the population of unincorporated King County. 86 J. The amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning Policies, as 87 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 88 population of unincorporated King County. 89 K. The amendments to the King County 2012- Countywide Planning Policies, as 90 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 91 population of unincorporated King County. 92 L. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 93 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 94 population of unincorporated King County. 'lrr+ 95 M. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 96 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14652, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 97 population of unincorporated King County. 98 N. The amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning Policies, as 99 shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 14653, are hereby ratified on behalf of 100 the population of unincorporated King County. 101 O. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 102 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14654, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 103 population of unincorporated King County. 101100 5 311111111 . Ordinance 15121 104 P. The amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning Policies, as 4,000 105 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14655,are hereby ratified on behalf of the 106 population of unincorporated King County. 107 Q. The amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning Policies, as 108 shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 14656, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 109 population of unincorporated King County. 110 R. The amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning Policies, as 111 shown by Attachment A to Ordinance 14844, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 112 population of unincorporated King County. 113 S. The amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning Policies, as 44.04 6 Ordinance 15121 114 shown by Attachments A, B and C to this ordinance, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 115 population of unincorporated King County. 116 Ordinance 15121 was introduced on 1/31/2005 and passed by the Metropolitan King County Council on 2/14/2005, by the following vote: Yes: 12 - Mr. Phillips, Mr. von Reichbauer, Ms. Lambert, Mr. Pelz, Mr. Dunn, Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Hammond, Mr. Gossett, Ms. Hague, Mr. Irons, Ms. Patterson and Mr. Constantine No: 0 Excused: 1 -Ms. Edmonds KING CO Y CO k.' L. ICING Y,W HING ON . :"4-4.4-------"". . Larry Phillips,Chair 4`-1 '-c .1F - ATTEST: fir✓ • oON...Xt.sA._A...0.-4 Anne Noris,Clerk of the Council APPROVED this ( day of ,v1 ! 2005. i ' .1 .41/11iLiil ..... Ron Sims,Cs my Executive `• --r1 =n �.)) Fri C: Attachments A.Motion No.04-i.B.Motion No_04-2,C. Motion No.04-5 c ;T 7 . 5 o0 045 15121 09/15/04 9/ 04 Attachment A tor Sponsored By: Executive Committee /pr _ 1 MOTION NO. 04-1 2 A MOTION to amend the Urban Growth Area of King 3 County. This Motion also modifies the Potential Annexation 4 Area map in the Countywide Planning Policies and 5 designates a new Urban Separator. 6 7 8 WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act,RCW 36.70A_110 requires 9 counties to designate an urban growth area or areas within which urban growth shall be 10 encouraged and outside of which growth can occur only if it is not urban in nature; and 11 12 WHEREAS,Countywide Planning Policy FW-1 Step 8 recognizes that King County may 13 initiate amendments to the Urban Growth Area; and 14 Nome 15 WHEREAS, the King County Executive and the Metropolitan King County Council 16 requests the Growth Management Planning Council consider the attached amendments to 17 the Urban Growth Area for eventual adoption by the Metropolitan King County Council 18 and ratification by the cities; and 19 20 WHEREAS,the Growth Management Planning Council has directed the interjurisdictional 21 staff team to review additional Urban Separators and present them for GMPC 22 consideration,and 23 24 WHEREAS,Countywide Planning Policies LU-31 and LU-32 anticipate the collaborative 25 designation of Potential Annexation Areas and the eventual annexation of these areas by 26 cities. The attached amendments are supported by the affected city. 27 28 BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF 29 KING COUNTY HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS: 30 31 1. Amend the Urban Growth Area as designated by the Urban Growth Areas Map in the 32 Countywide Planning Policies, the Potential Annexation Area map,and the Urban 33 Separator map as depicted on the following attached maps: 34 35 36 - 1 - 15121 I Attachment 1, a map showing the removal of the red"overlap"designation for the ,moi 2 unincorporated Urban area between SeaTac and Tukwila and including this area in 3 Tukwila's PAA; 4 5 Attachment 2, a map showing the redesignation of Perrigo Park from Rural to 6 Urban and including this property within Redmond's PAA; - 7 8 Attachment 3, a map showing the redesignation of the Enumclaw Golf Course from 9 Rural to Urban and including this property within Enumclaw's PAA; 10 . 11 Attachment 4, a map showing the redesignation of a.6 of an acre parcel on Cougar 12 Mountain from Rural to Urban and including this property within Bellevue's PAA; 13 14 Attachment 5,a map showing the redesignation of 120 acres of the Bear Creek 15 Urban Planned Development from Urban to Rural; 16 17 Attachment 6, a map showing the redesignation of approximately 128 acres in the 18 Willows Road area from Rural to Urban and including this area within Kirkland's 19 PAA. Approximately 70 acres of this area is designated as an Urban Separator. 20 21 2. Amend the Interim Potential Annexation Area Map by including any additional 22 unincorporated urban land created by these UGA amendments in the Potential 23 Annexation Area of the adjoining city. 24 '40100 25 3_ Amend the Urban Separator map by adding the new Urban Separator as shown on 26 attachment 6_ 27 28 4. These amendments are recommended to the Metropolitan King County Council and the 29 Cities of King County for adoption and ratification. 30 31 32 33 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County in open session 34 on September 15, 2004 and si ai:: . • • - chair of the GMPC. 35 36 37 111.1 b �.( � 38 'on .'ms, hair, Gro' h Management Planning Council 39 40 - 2 - Hrfl --IT 1, /} � I f : 1_ it y� _�Fw....J ..;c,�.. ;1. r —I L_-- I •=a. II �`/-_, �I( I- Ir_� NE prisi -77-1,-v-,,,,I.--717-,..--, ...-,....,•_....,j-L---\,,,,,s,... _ i !.\„. _. i .-.1'......`'—.. j I I r''.. '''' '''';'.!',;,3.:,\L •-•'-"-.'...1'\'''''.-1.....--7.' ''''---\ --1 41 --,1,-7_,i. _.._.j ....i.L._ 1 .,,F._::_c:i: •-.-// ))/ ,,,,.,,,......i i ),!----;-)r--.--- -7-7-71 ' li..,.; 0 t 1 i T F.:I::7_11 c,,, '.'. in 0 I �1`1�` 1--- a I i' �// .l' /A ��.�, 1._I I• 1 .� Z� ri a 4- w ; -- ei ,..., ._ , , ,.z......„,,, : , ,:‘,.„\,,,,.., .\\Ni -, ../ . ...... -,, ,-. .--.;,fi, -.,-:_..„\,____..s..7,E.:-....::: '1' - .'5)'')-72?" I\ ','',. .„',,", aa LaIll\' .,. ..� / - ', 1�.. __7< co _.... c... ,6� O '•�r 0,0,r )Il71,.II \. i)._._.\! lh.� h \�} _ I\I. \e10 0i , \ 112.1, d 7 .:. r_�u�I� I _ —' LIIt1tiI L.5;:,I, lilt i . I� 1--"Ik*; 1 i :.- 4'013 ),_ g.V: ti:EZI . ; u i L, 'L ;r I( • t.tI' .0 \ "CI„, 1--ii i1 Ail; L ;•ir•... j F,. "I 0- �Cy 7•E J.-S61.1 ---In I I lry y \\ :,'�`�'�'I�,lil��i�l��l�'! .1 t �.0 ��. x•@� O II j..� 1.,,‘ . c Fr+ t mr�] \ i r v� �? I. IfUI J)��! �; IJ - 'l-r,;.,..,,L..' 11` 1 c f f '':,4t',;:: ` �� 14 r' v\ rr 1. �to C 11....._.:11,.)711!1._. !' „td Sr n`i'i y^ ,. / \ I A.../:.,.-..,..„,...9 I ��illl3 i iii � ` ^;.',ori ,,.;<a., en' I l:';;,,�� : r 1I'j / ,,'. ity,�rlN'q' h • ars• i,� .v _. ` aq ��2�E v of Df+-Y �;+. 14E.11 OH iL.4I 1e//;,^',,: �,.1;1•"r�' 'iy{.T I "' �' _I?i 6$ ,1,-16 el o , 1d, r ii z1.7...y1 .,L4 ''1.ry[11/' ,il l-,53,2,- .u�' -,--"ice'— - �� '� t^ l T __ IIi_......45:73_ti �.1L •"7 ii"�. :�/,\ ,\J�•L� v-?,'a�7:_.�— I ,_) I:1 S 5 pa i Xi. 1, ___,.-.-J.1__. ( , Li. -, j E$ ,.::'iVi } . L I I ( J L a E E RI'•��I I/is r� - �ry y' � l„i:�.�.;ii..,;h •�� .,,,,,,,LL � I ''^• �,I,b. -�_ ` g I T -,''.. ,c;; 7'' 4:--, _ t' y� '^T{ "� 3�� _.�I c-tsHi. ..... '. j,`•-:'.;rf--],,:y' i1. u, 4V.±-'71,7_ _ • .z-ri 1-1 ;I;;'r,1.; ,7 1 •••111_(. _lilt s _ �_ I I _ �.I •i 1 I ; �L 11 i' 7.� • ,-g y - - �� ..:L r �,`:t:�'1 F f'�- :t I 1• ° ..) ,:i. b S _.L.,.._I-.:'� _� .L • k�1'Ir•I ^l. F111 � Orli) i ri lilt i - I .Il....� il•r' 11fE_+�.f]': z t,: i b. ` ( �)T `I,1' I fr at ! _ �J 1.. 111 ^Yy?4 �g I— � •`, ' .lit'r.1.7.).:1.1.,t[-P'.�!1 ii. 1J.:��_`y�'•'l,:iY..'� .1,a' _ ."'li1L� �1. V�,..... 'F __I..�1' lll'1�”-��—`.! �.� p ��. � 9 I ', 1:; ..::ite ; l ,II '.IHIi!11 li ! '� j'-�• `?. .;a "i.. i•� '(- �ht � {-•�.r'7 •'(!1?LI rw, T! ie r - ...__..I_ h .i.a I „ •; L. 1�...:.';.,.::eJ i, ___ ttl �_,1: iiIrI'n F $ 8 i L__, L .1„I..I.;e,...s...._.., III i i. j 4 r�,E `�� 1 �' l a�. J -i it g { 11 a ,"•. :� � '..'P _...r.. .1...-..!:,i.,..0.,..„,1.,,,,...-,.•� � I ., _. .�L,. _ �Iy�11� �I�i.i,"i-I LUG:- ,L�r�L�(11 Z 31 f� t 1 .•.»d i_::•_1�._ ,. . il I1 rl —1.---1 �' I_ tT '" '_r.. {� ' r ��- 1...,1Tll Cf 11+ �_. .s- .J l- _! I t'',''. f�?r' I I. 1.1._. I�'r I_.1 Ii .ji_iJ. J r E y '( _ .I _ ItE15..._1• ^.:.a 5 �.I'�_I TI (.r._I, l ?J1 ra• ,-.J_!t..L:ii I......I .I i .:;ly^( 'R�r�i'��. i! II -...,;,:r.,--;-�,�)-1 f�" I-f�ii�j � I I - � '�i'J'( 1. l�a._?.. ..�, 1 5 12 1 Attachment 2 N Proposed Amendment City of Redmond Perrigo Community Park Site -UGA Amendment D u to...Wo.boded on Fr map nes pew ronpie4 be .m9 County 1031 nom a variety d souses and.ss5800 ro Umge ...W s. RM Cau^rl as in p�r.1.a,..pass o..�.d.at b...rag..o.d.s.11 ..nass p nyrs n the use d s.ar*...nuns. w c.s. . Urban Growth Boundary ,h.as a 5ab.a 9 35*0,pear-.0.c1.modeM3.et - op Other Parks/Wildemess conYP.n.N damages .00.4.9, but not Invited to. by a paw. r a. g Item she as 00 M 51the onto ^con° ^d en nut, ,3e at tn.a #♦ ♦ Proposed Urban ...mann on met mea s vanp..d...tot M...nen aeeppsion or Growth Boundary rr Rural Residential 400 200 0 400 800 i .ii Feet L 1 L_____: Incorporated Areas ar.csoon,rapseo-.e.uwlw.<?a.en.......-..r•rrluda-w.oat liFer "'. US ‘.'iir -- VW 1 . i 1 ; i P17 ! ,\„.\\ • . \ i r / 0 4 D‘ , , , 4., ,.,., ...,v..' i 1 NPPI„. _ ' IC, • , �� . . � 1 I i Nip 1 . ,,,: Y4 _' rr I I r -- --- -------- — iF t T, + I 1 I rr f es_—i—MI-1 \ fee,/ I! INI VIM-- ` ---A __• I $ Ir op 31.. I 4. - ,..,\_'c-7,_",, v \ :I li J.< . . i iT ---____J) _ i I a T RE MO D I 111 1; 1 rr I I I Eyes Cre• 1 � r ti- I I. : 1 Ilff 1 I ilk I 1 C____\A____j i 1 • 1 i ! l r ; I � , ., . (( I ; i li II ' �1 Jio I I" i t IHI l IIIL"IIII ,a.r r - I ; � _1 1 1 1 i 1 i \ 15 12 1 Attachment 3 N Proposed Amendment + . . Enumclaw Golf Course - UGA Amendment .4%10 The Mamma,.inficia on.is map Iva to.=naiad ty .....#,,, • ling Carty anti h.:}1.a ratiOr of somas and a ariana le canna. ...ir -•;.t..& Urban Growth Boundary mains nos. Km,County manes nO nixosanazoiona of CX Rural City UGA 055100.5 0105555 oe anakelam to actisacy.narmloanoss_ maim.;of ngies 55.55 no.M wan information Xing Comma alma nos fai Lads Oar aom gonna*spoc4 l......kiaaoMil.of #i * Proposed Urban consofianaol donmgos Maiming. tml oaf larked oa lois mammas of toil pads marling ban am am of maim ol ino • • Growth Boundary rr Rural Residential aloornaion 0.....1.0 on gas map. Any sae al tali snap or •i alormalocnon Cis map is ponialod broepl lay main monision ol 1 Karp Camay Proposed Forest Production _ 500 250 0 . 500 1,000 District Boundary f Forest 1 _ii ;1 Feet 1 g mm. L 4 ,----• incorporated Areas ..,...,.....,..,......_,.................._,..............,..,..„-- i "......,..........--........._...„,........,—,—...--,..,...-. i ,i' ,.._, _ __,1 ... , i I;, \--\\ !I r--Iii ------------ ' - . : i•i ,--)1i; . • , • 1- S., 1 I - . • ,.I I I i i r f ___ . . ,. . I; N ; i • i E NUMCLAW i __ 1 ' • , .I i----i: ! •,----,--- 1 ' N I i 1 • I , \ , i . . . 1 .. t------i !I 11 t ., f. 1 : ,I . I: rr f . -,,1 I ,t , 1 1; ; i .. i . !i /1 , , p ; • , ;• i 7 !I i t-I , .. !-----i-- • -• - 1 :: ; f t t!, • • . _,,• ; I, ! ii I t• . .. ,; : ___ : ,• , i . . f I t•1: :4 t , 6 m •.j. . I J • 1 ‘.• -1-- 1 •• , 1 - ___________— ---- ----i-----ArV . . , . i I I— ,,,''—"-•' •"-,N.---.. ..;:-.----- ...---. --: , I i ; , . ! , ._._t ,, , . aftar..-1-_s&arn.i,,.-.: . •••..... t ----' -----. '-----'s; ' —I V.-N.. '' ,. .•-... Pr . l L. t , ‘--,--t--——.- . • •'. ''., . i ;, •—• --. . : • • • I rx \ 1 ...... , I I--- •-:i --i---- — f'ii.---.----1..-- . Ni _ . . N ----1---_____• .,._ t____' _Itturf, . rr ••2 : ,. '--,.. I rft. • i•-t: - ._i_-_-__-.-_-7.:-/ A - 1 4 __....._.., 1 :,_ i ..„ i. , iI ___0: . r---------; • 4.•sE..4• si.„. ,.- . . ,-. , , -.,...,-......„. . -,mit,....,4 .....-,.....-,__. I rx , . . .• .- >< .,r , •, ? • i ag I . I . . - •; I ti, - - . _- - _I : - I • • „ s I I rr 1 .. • • —t.t•-•.--..... I . • . • . - _ \ " r• ••__._ r.- i r-\, , ___ . - __. -i • _, . • \___,• ! r ----), ::-...\- I :- ..,\ . I ' • , iv -... A -t-El. --- -----_. _ . , - r '', , • . • • ----T------------_---- ' . • . . . • __ 1512 . 1 Attachment 4 Proposed Amendment Cougar Mountain - UGA Amendment Th..+...ease..a d.d on sea...e hes been armee..by K••9 Co..w co*been a•a^.y es morass.ed a•Aima r e...p. .Pep Cent. mea. ..e..e..eoen.e waoeash*nee.a*drd.x IS absosrech m.oS.Sna. stoniness a npAes Be IN tap a such edo.e..Lo.. .ng Ces y sha...e 4 Sable b any g.fl.ha,*O.ivdr.al or COMmoan,."� ®""ns tee,noSubings m na boned a b' - ' Urban Growth Boundary rr Rural Residential ea weer•wac.v eoe.O. a.tsse a Ito .da......en ce,w..d e.e+a...e An,era Coon{ .• • Proposed Urban U I Urban Residential,low, I du/ac 300 150 u 30o soo • • Growth Boundary re« 11111 Study Area ri COMA I I I I Ili 1 J[___ 0 ..____, . lik.' . , ii, 1 �► ' (I I u I Kr- f... B LL VU 1 N 7eow alp* 1 . P� . .47#'4141a I all 1111.111/4 issellk &KM ip.‘111- i i1 it - , I • .41 immisallaillilleallum ♦ �,.�� . r.. iv , wak#40 '"" illiaNIIIIIMman -4 �• � illib° s a:� ,�_ _ � - bl t 1111111411111111111.1.1.1114.1111: ii v_g-.- X AN 4" * --- te^a5.4 . A ‘-', . I\\410, 1I t \Ns, rr _ �\ • . i i 1 ' f 1512 Attachment 5 N • Proposed Amendment + . 1 Redmond Ridge - UGA Amendment -Now The rearerynon mchalact on Pan map has boon comp...by K .alb Cowey man bona a ranary ol swears ancl es saliva to ctrynve wt.. 0.11.0 K.thst Gory thattus ho a.P.T.aaan•nn.. ...tarsier.eryn.ass.1nnaar,as FT awl:v..,conryineeness. 1....nn'Tn.T. ,.Ova na of such Inknnaton O,Cost* shatt not to nada Ite aary banner..special,Indrect earykonlai.oe cavopwar al danapar naming. bat nel Gent. P. Iota won..a bet perrys saskiinr Ppm Pa.van of nasysa ol Pry Urban Growth Boundary r r Rural Residential edonnabon conl.inan an Pas map Any ary•0/Pas map a (#1*-1" enannaian on Pas map.6 pnryablbd wasp try ta,Oan parnnvion of Wrig County ** * Proposed Urban upd Urban Planned Development 750 375 0 750 1.500 . . Growth Boundary 13; 1. 1 Feel El Change Area ••••••••*.i..-....._....a......................o.4........4...,_....,.......... T nernanraciarrynryobronlenraen_ry.i.finsenbry'ans_2•0401,215onry. 4,1une in. ,. :.i • 'kt:7 ii..41/ \\\N . \\ , ..... .. . • .L.'' ! • i; \ ...-- . • \ l's,A .:."=1.. ; _4-7,: _z , . : s .: -------1---____ • . I •:\- .... 1",2,- --1.-"'" • - . **•-4.1-6 -A • __I ! -• -•4..„: .;• . .• 1/ .,•- I' -i-------- . /' TA:: .,. . t, . \... : , acsex...,, it . :.: ______-Y.:---::: . I_____.___4 I . _, '..-,.. ;,,_ .---,--mr. - -•..,-?!..,,z,s4,;:.., . . f , .. ,.., . _ — • `-..,- -ft . ,! .. t! i I- • I . P -,- 1-I---. .. .. i. t • .: . r ,:. i , _r ; N -- , 1 - . • • , I; , ._______-- _ - ...,_, , y r .•___I , . •K -T ti.'":1 I. , I - ; ' \ .4--1:,Y . ______-___ . • i 1 i . ..N. . ..,:•,,;-;61.: . -. 1 . ; , , . I \: ;-.-6!: f .-- - ------- -1 '\\.- _ 111 ! . ;1 . I i - '-• •-• 1 .„---..-- • . -1.--,,- •• .,• ___ --- . .., _,....- .•- • , \\ : -,,-__,, ,...a: ,..._____,,,-„:-.„-:„...„„,, -.......,_ ., • • \-. '''''',-=,?,!;,,,•,, .„.,----. \\, • 'r---..-!k-„,,",.-3-,.,-;:-..,... •- ! ,. _..- . -•"!-7.?: .. ..... . , r---T-----------_-_____ . \\, .1.---,::-.7_:.--r...•..--..: ---'—`1 ------- ______t___ 1 E _______, , \\ • , . , . --r.. • ' : . • . ag_____ ________ 1___._._-- ! a IT- . - _ pry . • l'..' • I • • . PP ' ________ ___O be . r \ . . , • ,______ . . . ----4 . • . ----____ ._; . r-1 g • • . F . • .!:------L_-,_- ___J :.! • • • a , ___.: : : : . • ,..... . ____________________, . ._._ . .. i . . I A - 1.__________, • .. , , !,-__ ,___• _____i • x •\ .. ; . , 1 . . . . , .,- . t-- i 1!- __ • i . f i -:„___,- , , I f------1:----___-_ ._: , !________ ,• i . I i r ir 1 . -.__ -•., c----• . __t ;----------;.--____ . j:'—-—---, _,.. . __ - •• • • . ; . . ___n , • , , . ,-• - • 4 s , .- • 1 i i { ' ---1,----•-••--: : I ' ., i \ . • ;----, • 1 --I - -- -. 1----.--; • , - . _i______, ! . ,, - "-----1________,_' _ _____ ' i - . • : .-----—4— '. i! 4 • ! I • : .s. , 4 y----_7_....--.----______I , - --.T-4•.>-' •----- i r---.._r . _ii ; 1-1----,1-----::-.---- -72.7--, _..--1__ ______ _________ _ 11----q------;-=_'-= 'a-., i • 4 --t --• t ; _I ;-----,'"------F1,------% i • j , 4 j! ' -A.. •'''- - - ,-,-:,:-_7,‘;•.,•-,7•-t ,-_____, ! i------i , • :: ,----- ! : , . . 3 , , .. :4 : ! i ! • i II 11-----1 i ; I.-----.----------------_. • z . J -, ;-4----!-----_; i i i i r-----41----i i I ; :1 -, t 1 i I I ! I i ; I ' I; ,. -----.... •,:‘, •,-----:,----, ; ; — 1 V----1\--1---- ; .-- :...___, . 't. _.-• i ! 'I i '.---',' -77------f—' • i ! , :- - ---' i ' • - i -- t \\•__ ---.-_--•-----..--i-I----!i-----'\_,I--- '.._!. _ . . ! • '''''-•,,Y-7'..:-,-, • • • " I., ..... ,- .: . - ___ . • . • ! •"--===----1: r . • ___ • . . • 1 - . • • ;• ',----7-\, .... ,--------4,:t.i,.: • , I i I ',----, • • - . : --;' ---;-. -.7-'..""!!"---Z-,4'.7---- " • . t • ..__ . • —---—.-- 15121 _________. . Attachment 6 " Proposed Amendment - _4_ Willows Road Subarea Plan - UGA Amendment Tn.re....rodded.n On nubs Ins been co'peed by King Canny s.a.e.a.va.:.sy of.e,.as arra.,subj.e w dung. . ..Mur rola. ...el Co.,•w.: no.eo:wcuvs as wane...eaposts a inebee.as b...Ky.mn^debvss. • l'-'%•=" r'y.. baseline.;a.:y..e.w used such mandrin.Ka.)County _ Urban Growth Boundary g b Greenbelt/Urban Separator new es be ruble b any spank i.e..nos.al.a ni co.... Menages inducing but ea in.ud To. 1.9.M.n ei pro.ram.,wan e..a.ae .revs.•s. e. . . ,,said,w br.ai.e.en.:a nae, ,...,Mae,a eK.,n„a ♦. • Proposed Urban Ufr1 Urban residential,medium,4-12 du/ac :..a.a.a..m ere..,is pdenbba...d q..:n..n p...sama • Kane Cm.). ' Growth Boundary rr Rural residential 400 200 0 400 800 _ Feel L___i Incorporated Areas ED Change Area ,.c....rm<Man.a..Mamoaeu.-.o.....••••._am.v q.........-+..._.n.q _—'. : t NE141,d Si— l • • _-__- - i __ -i € V t i M . d `_ --__- __ _ �E--_--_ _max �....,... �l • f __ ...ten. , t-` - -- i ' —: i_ -• — i _ 1 - t�_— I/ l;' tit -- ir,f- "-- -- _\ L i --- • • : -= — _ - NE 132nd St - ------ 1 4 _____ -i _ • - _ - f E — :..-_ __ t J- r ti _ - I • , _ - ------- _ . _ `--—_• ii Eft F,. sg u ..,/ /,,` i T4_ ,T ��' ;o <''` k . KIRKLANDR/ 3 - I-' E f t - _; . 15121 2005 .. 045 09/15/04 Attachment B fir✓ Sponsored By: Executive Committee /pr 1 MOTION NO. 04-2 2 A MOTION to amend the Urban Growth Area of King 3 County_ This Motion also modifies the Potential Annexation 4 Area map in the Countywide Planning Policies. 5 6 7 WHEREAS,the Washington State Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A.110 requires 8 counties to designate an urban growth area or areas within which urban growth shall be 9 encouraged and outside of which growth can occur only if it is not urban in nature; and 10 11 WHEREAS, Countywide Planning Policy FW-1 Step 8 recognizes that King County may 12 initiate amendments to the Urban Growth Area; and 13 14 WHEREAS, the King County Executive and the Metropolitan King County Council *tow 15 requests the Growth Management Planning Council consider the attached amendments to 16 the Urban Growth Area for eventual adoption by the Metropolitan King County Council 17 and ratification by the cities; and 18 19 WHEREAS,Countywide Planning Policies LU-31 and LU-32 anticipate the collaborative 20 designation of Potential Annexation Areas and the eventual annexation of these areas by 21 cities_ The attached amendments are supported by the affected city. 22 23 BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF 24 KING COUNTY HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS: 25 26 1_ Amend the Urban Growth Area as designated by the Urban Growth Areas Map in the 27 Countywide Planning Policies and the Potential Annexation Area map as depicted on 28 the following attached maps: 29 30 Attachment 1, a map showing the redesignation of an area adjoining the Issaquah 31 Spar Road from Rural to Urban and including this property within Issaquah's's 32 PAA. There is also a very small (approximately.2 acre) redesignation from Urban 33 to Rural to correct a likely mapping error. 34 35 Attachment 2, a map showing the redesignation of approximately 6 acres from 36 Rural to Urban and including this property within the City of Renton's PAA; - 1 - 15 121 1 , 2 3 2. Amend the Interim Potential Annexation Area Map by including any additional 4 unincorporated urban land created by these UGA amendments in the Potential 5 Annexation Area of the adjoining city. 6 - 7 3. These amendments are recommended to the Metropolitan King County Council and the 8 Cities of King County for adoption and ratification. 9 10 11 12 13 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County in open session 14 on September 15,2004 and signed b the chair of the GMPC 15 16 17 !►/ 18 Ron ims, hair, Growth Management Planning Council 19 20 - 2 - • . 1511 _ ttachment 1 N Proposed Amendment Now Issaquah Spar Road UGA Amendment rho.a...,..o...a.,.a a,y.la b.,bab.bnataa.by nrug Coss ss.Pros a snots a asses and is sung.,nw.q. sPhoul nous Ss sots, ' Urban Growth Boundary ♦♦♦ p W.....,a... e a such.b..�... w o Coss, • ♦ Proposed Urban notno 60101 any perwal.usS.SSC.. ot or snaps North Fork Issaquah CreekconssurGrowth Boundary mamma or°"°'°"`f9°'"°ban. "al"s"o"°' (approximate location) A IndsIns. As nal rabies. lo, lest e°t N-Spar(approximate location) .+Damon mw'...a on Ss sap h.ara a bus Ins o. stornsion cnaosop is siSornta,..Sb..',p.,as ona . Incorporated KM Coss o 75 150 300 450 600 L... Incorporated Areas rr Rural Residential I�....IIIMMMM"111 Feet CD Change Area ul Urban Low,1 du/ac .....,..,o., .«...s......tont.s.a..,. ...... lit- -' \ HI it \ . IN \ „n;:::::::.. ..::.: 1101111k —41Yy t SE 56thSt L_______ t _ ; ...,r kl \ 441/410, /Ai \., , F „.,,._.:4.....„.„4„._ ,,,,,,,,„. ..., ir 1..,„,, _ oJate` ♦)- 5a.4) 3 I 1 . I „‘ ‘ .1 • 1 •• • -.. ,. , . ,r 1 1, ,•.,.')0,.,,.;'.5..,;(i'.:''-,',AA,•,' '',./i.----...-4 . I i . ,„..;41','s'it.`.54,',.,%.- • 1 ', 111litimaiiiiii II I •II 1 1 .' . . ' i I -441721)','.''''i ' 0' ' fe.,7 '..., ,/,/-•• --- / _ .. , cs:u „...,..., -k7,?,:,;et,,,,,, ,.. - .... .,. 2 , , ,w.,,,,N.,. 1r.t • . . • ••• •"'",'"•'• •t.•'''''V'''''‘."•,•• "'"i-T"' ' ••'i .:; s 1 1.1.''•,,.:',,i,•41,074;,41,,....,•- .•. • ;\ .,j• --......,r's,n r . ; , i0,,,,4t.it .- 1 \ ,-,$,t • \ . , ,..„i*,... ..,.-11:"4,,)A,........g,,,20,..\,, 1. • .. ,,f,,, I -,. ''' ' , ' „ .( 1, , _,,(st,. s.....'.'Ak,'1.%•.`,,'','.v-,..' ",- - PIN F,r. 15.1.1 47.--$ -•- ,,,,I' '''., • . ' .1'" y• Y,•`,.''' -• ' ' , f - '1,01V.A. I=..4.'.? .-,',,, 1:7 i •1,r.i, 1,11',,,j1 A'4,4'',!" ,,i,:.,,,, I,i',',4,")''.,`,.4'.A,,,'cif,i.`,Vi,.;,hir', ,$...#1',:,6'.1.:4Yi7tZ Age'' 1 , , ., \! / - • .. 7'•,/* .' N ...in.1:I.,,,r'-fA•S;I::`,„1,..' ,.. 4''''''''iltri*elk',I4'!'"4\$.4W'i 1.4i V....,''.e,1,11;"'0 te?." \ I I/i ../‘,r " 1 I. ' - •• "444.,_;;;`),,,:.•74,,it .....-,,,,,., \. ,•,,!,-,:,,,'N.,_ 4,„ ...- ! i 4 1,,,,4' '1'iJiide0.1,,I,,y.„.4,.. i-- ,,-,,,,vq,„1-,40,&.• ..t,...,- t .,k,,,, it.,..!.....0.,r, ,,,1.sr - . / .7 , J. ,.., *irt‘t.``..,,..:"46 il'14.''',,,,,, i,''''.),,,t,,,tiii,-,,,,,,Iqg- 4,,,y4r-g4,,P. 4-,•:,',.,r,•,-,t^11,, „..,t4,'• . j•. , • ••--./•••••7,,,,./ -1, • 1,0,•••••,,,!,,-,,,,,%,,:,,,,,••,. ,,,,,,r3.:::,„.,..,41., ,,A-s'1, ,,,, 5.4.,;.!,..•„*11,4,,,, :,,,,,If.,3,•;••••;.4-../F ,/ . .. /•,.-..i 1.,.- " i ;' •..: 110;1 0.-- ‘,ii.1,.- t • ' i I .,,,,Kt-r• ,•,-•... imo,t.k.A.4.•k‘••v -,.. ..).; ,/z.• .0 -,,,,,,f4....,,,,•,.; >--.., ,, -;-.7-;,..c.,--,-),N4.- f40.„:):,741,,,:ir, 4.1',,, ,i;•.-4,44.,'„t-' • ' ( . c> E. '`'1•4';44.4.(4-=.7.V.,n"1..!',34,',;'`,.41$iiir:Mit4.,e V,f0.4,VIiAii.4k el,ker;All'4.1`1N,g, .': .•• /,''''. ,,1 1..:`,.. \-1_1-- *.: , .•. ‘4.1,,,m, 4,4.1.....z' —- "' ' ' \\\:::,..,::.•,:.tV4,,,,'ot.,44:.':..;_:-.'I''47,,,;,4:t.,,41,--:::••••••:-.1( .. ca m , . ',A...0.1';•44,4„,,,..,.5,i, ,,,-...tr.,-.....,•,-•A..44,.,v,44,), ,..(.1,1.1,,,•.,41.-., ., ,• - 1 %, r• —../ ? ,..-A ,--.-r,.;j t-, , ...„ •, .4,,,„,...t..,„,_.,.,,,,,... ....,,, ..„,,f.,,..114*. k,-.T, 4 r74.I.,. ,, •., / , ,,, ., , , 1 LCD .- •"-' .././1, ':-or.ii .34 oz,,%•`13J-d,;',..,1•'‘',-...*te'.+1;,,•••••''.4` , .;.,,`„,,. Ns s'•, . r, "-....,1.•1.-,,-,.':. ... ,... , •• . *.'• ••\ / / 07-..ii/I-J •••• )L r ,•,,,', 7,- ,75, •2",,/i it/ !I Li 1 i 1 I 1, , ' . 1 '' • '•'' II ' 1/'•'' -i'''"y ' ,c-Ir' ' . • , ‘.igo•:,,,-;71.----- - 7--- E 5, 1; 1 , ! " . . • , . , , ., . ,• '.y' ' 1 ,,,,,,,,,,•:‘,_,,,./?\\e.... .,_ •••• • ••, H . c.) ,1 ,, \/". >,/"-• ''"•( ., 761) ,•2 Zi /2,\Q ,N1 I I I ;I'I I...il i 1 I i \l, \,>-/._ s7,..(•,/ 1 • / / ' ' ', `• • Z/5 C4)) C CO '/ P‘ I i 1 1 ' , ' ' .• .' V // 1 ',C.( ' I ji:`:.. I 0 CO ,r, .,,,. .,,._t, ....1.1.1.,111L I : .! ! r ' : ',• ' \ f --'' i rj 11-1 if-- I , 1 1 , 1 , , , .).,.... l I 'I) CC 3 CI / ' \ CC ,‘ .,i'''...--. 'i . ••. .70-...;.,-?.. --'- - 1-- - ••-•.• .-..\. .../..\../ r 1 1r i i 76 cu i._ . • - I . _,,,,..-. ! ' (1) p:. ,,,••• _ I, '. r'''%:5: '3'-:-.1 • 11 , ,,,, -.1 WI" — E ,- E 0 ,..,-;,.., ,L : ‘,,,,,,- ,/2 .. 1 E c 1:3 ,._ = o :i1.5 :..:,,)...,,....,.,,.;,„... ;, , i - .,.,,•-•",<„),..,!--...._,) I = - o c ...I/Z. ,---.),..1 ...v.'.,.:7-:;` '' c•' I ''' I E a' ), "C3 E L- t -rj ....-• .,...‘. r ...• ,,,,,,.• C < (4 1 .-1, ,•::‘'\L/.L.J...t.till lt.))11,2 ....,,f.„.,--,,,,v,"-' •-.\: --;',--i-r-1•••i i ,•••, .---.1 (1.) < -0 c •,,..1-,-.,..i.if ,,I.,./ .„......."" E 0 . 0 r; [ .:::;.,..i.i.; 1,i. -..,....-)t.• . < = co ci, -E. 2 Dt, r '. n ;••'''" --- CI) ' g m g ,v 0 ‘ r .. .. .. . '1 Ci.) 1-• h. - (1.) ir CD 0 .?C2 ) 'sri' \\\ X, .'- — ' E I I I .... 0 6 .§ a, . ' .,' \I ci) 1 I , ,- /T\= 4' 1 0 / I 17.) 01) 0 0 M IA o• I, .,I/ .-.-.....-_- C 0 1.. , •.. a.. = a.o 0 li a . ... ....__ 0 , 0 1 I . ............ . .kt,., .4,- P /..p.t. 0 . 11. — • ! ,•-.,)- c.n ,... 1 I 11 I 0 C ' r- i • I ..1 ' 7 1./ •--••••• • •• "" •- I - • •- • •--•-•.'!,f1;'';''''',1'1');1,1,'':.•-• 0 C i. :._,....1 --1—)("T",-r 1.n ,•, , ....,1•• `4-i , : r"'; . '---—,,, f 14 1 ' ' / ‘ .,. •10. " 0 I.- ; .I -."' "11 1 • ,....k ;_,:f....,‘.,..I..',,, ',` ' ' .., ,• ' • i ; .. 1 ,,,•1 01 • C f, it '77\7. --1 !F;r:)"'•\. .\ T,f'. ` 1"j. ' , < CD Els/ 4141 9 6. Il ,C..c.,;',.'"I'''.1..I i. I-,:,,- ' ,,'r ' ;, -_-; I. , H = ,,,,?!..•1,,, , ,911itaii.40,;A.,:, CC 1.1 11:111 as Je •, ,..,1/....'.. !.-r.-;.',„( ,,,\.y !. 1 ' , ! ',, 1 !., . ;•'), 's '-' ''''. ..,s--.,,, ,,.., •4y, .41e.t- „4,,,./1.',4z,rri..4 (' /..,\e;, '' •:" . 1 , ' 1 ' . ;; ' ......' , I-• 1 /:',..;'::' 'V . 41'• , 4.,•kli' . ;',4•1)1/,',',,,r11 tiii 4,111311 I ' l',11, '',,,./.-e..-'./'t'l''i 1 ' '.,,. .':*. .., : '• .-.:i • '.• , :'', .-' . ' 4 •cr, •,.., ,,,-,atv• ,.,,,,,1/4.yo: , . • 4i 4,44,131,4hI,'• - lt4V.•'-',1*1.14.,7",••••) • 211/111,111P •(''''',4;r1,4•444‘..V,.44,' .0,.,..pet.. Y'it".`' •4,A,';,,ir., 1 2€ ';;;;',,',71.S;24' 0#%.•' ',V :"..,,,4-' ,1,`,,'''''t'Oq'' I il 111 1 11 ',',''... ) Cr'CI. ; I ', '..'-',' I\:.I.LI,' ' 1: 2.1arti • f'.`,;)4-4.1. l', :,'• ,..' li.r.r .tl'i;i1',:47e41,1,'_r,.' sigiiiiiii , • I t 1 v I . /i:"T") ----: Frs 0 ".t' .• .. y.I' ' , ..'• I 'I . I 2.H.,I , ; lisPlitlit 4 III i °[I 'C'>''V(..-:: -I :1:1 •-• .:\).)::, ' ,'.••.,'•,,'", ' . . .:: ..1,.,.. 1;',:.,-, 0,".0f17,,,,,,to'',I, •ci..,,,v01Hv,„..i.,,,i'.'`A. , ' i.•(''',"„1,',1414,r: '. '''''''1',.,,,,,,,,t,$., ...,,,.",* -''' ,or#'• • ',• ,',',..•.•.,•,, - I lie f 2 Ili (\,/ ',C-1......1 ,-.1 i•-•,!.,,',",‘• ' •./..'. '..:C‘.\, r, j: ,,,/,,.. ., -5 '''''• '1'':',,t'W "1:4-.1/.0 . ;ki Lis "t 8 N \;;-.1.1-•Thr r.\--1 c-.. ' .' '' ''/''.. ' :.•'•` ,\I ' I '• ) I'' .'''.;t1 •.‘, '' '...44..V.lat.?,At - *V. 11,0 / ( . iii.',.C:.,,,,:,,::.:.,,-,,,,;:, '•:,' ,:',,'. . . ".. , .! _ ...,, ! 4 . 4, •‘4!tg."0,6,.y.',01,1341.1:.,..r1,!•,i'044.,,,e,k,:•‘•%!!;0,..4„'4..,71,P• ,„'1',V4 z + 4T1 1 - ' . ,....• ..gP,t''''*".,':',;,';'1°,&,,,•,!•v,-":'%1!4.c '.,',. '..,',"'',.,74'.'... 1,..,,,14 .... 1 ' ' . , 1- — v.,,,,,q0:p2..,:*,,1, f.'• b ; Nr./ . ,7 - . . - - „,r7A,,,,,,,;:v,oe,,,,r.: :, „.. 15121 20050 4 5 12/07/04 Attachment C N Sponsored By: Executive Committee /pr 1 MOTION NO. 04-5 2 A MOTION to amend the Urban Growth Area of King 3 County. This Motion also modifies the Potential Annexation 4 Area map in the Countywide Planning Policies. 5 6 7 WHEREAS,the Washington State Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A.110 requires 8 counties to designate an urban growth area or areas within which urban growth shall be 9 encouraged and outside of which growth can occur only if it is not urban in nature; and 10 11 WHEREAS, Countywide Planning Policy FW--1 Step 8 recognizes that King County may 12 initiate amendments to the Urban Growth Area; and 13 14 WHEREAS, the King County Executive and the Metropolitan King County Council No"' 15 requests the Growth Management Planning Council consider the attached amendment to 16 the Urban Growth Area for eventual adoption by the Metropolitan King County Council 17 and ratification by the cities; and 18 19 WHEREAS,Countywide Planning Policies LU-31 and LU-32 anticipate the collaborative 20 designation of Potential Annexation Areas and the eventual annexation of these areas by 21 cities. 22 23 WHEREAS,the attached amendment is supported by the City of Covington,which has 24 taken steps to insure that the area known as Covington Park will remain in park use in 25 perpetuity. 26 27 BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF 28 KING COUNTY HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS: 29 30 1. Amend the Urban Growth Area(UGA)as designated by the Urban Growth Areas Map 31 in the Countywide Planning Policies to include the 29-acre area known as Covington 32 Park in the UGA, as shown on the map attached to this Motion. 33 34 35 - 1 - 15121 1 2. Amend the Interim Potential Annexation Area Map by including the 29-acre area 2 known as Covington Park in the Potential Annexation Area of the City of Covington. 3 4 3. This amendment is recommended to the Metropolitan King County Council and the 5 Cities of King County for adoption and ratification. 6 - 7 8 9 10 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on 11 December 7,2004 in open session and signed by the chair of the GMPC. 12 13 14 ► 15 Ron ims, air, i`r•wth Management Planning Council 16 17 - 2 - Attachment 1 N ' Proposed Amendment + Covington Park Site - UGA Amendment *oar' TM selonemon mOusPed on Ines map Me been comMed by - Keg County emir Item a vaney of soonces sruf re sublua Inc/yang, wrap./nom. Vera County Inalus no repusonteram .so 4:4--i'''''-•;•,,,,-, Urban Growth Boundary 11 Rural Residential ware*,ozone"or onolied,es to ace-veacy.coropteleness. Irnerinette.oF - npMs Po Om vsu of suclivransuran Moe County . snail not De batee for ase...Mee-NeOer*mefee..eei.o.... conseproorlial damages incluoing but not fueled io. MP ••• • Proposed Urban •menues et inel woks muMing Mono lbe use or Mouse v/Pte • O p Other Parks/VVilderness *maw.cratamed en Ms snap M.Yale el 0-is ay,go Growth Boundary ! reran..ow to rams sratubiledeocese by.Mtn peronsoira a/ Mop Covey r........., 500 250 0 500 1.000 MI Study Area L ! Incorporated Areas i Feet . ..........4;....._..-..................._,„.....,.........,,..,...Q..OVUM.. micomar•0015-0/raosral0.80004 moo ormemMsn_200•01/75 errev•orpr_pwle.•tif....4".00l pa • i :: ' I !! , I: . . . . . . • :I I : • . I I I I : .1--- I ; 7 I I I ____ : -- , I I :!- I 1 , ' ; •2, -- I • i I I i i . : •• • r--1---,-- ___1_ I • l • I • . , . • i : I I I I • ! . . I ' ! • —• - 1 . ' . . • . i • - : -• ---• ! . . ' . . -• --.. ,. -.. . , • ' •.. • -•.- , • • : . • • f f . ... • !--. ____•,=.,::::,-,--,,,-,-,f.,-,,,,,,-..---_-,-,,.; • , . :• , . . . . -- -- - . -- • • . • _. . . ; • - • ,_ 7, - - .• U I ••• 1 - • - . .-_— -,• .---,---' . : .a. ' . •g - . r : —.: : : .• ' :• , . ' SE 24(///1_Ss , ; ;• . f. _ ig I , ; • : ---" ,_2: -:-7 --, •' / .. i . ! :--- .:----, ;--• : 1 . / • I I ----E-1 ' 1 • . _ : -1-----ii --—r----"-----'T-1-77----T- I ;-- I t 1 I I— I / t - ' .I 1 • - , I—-—: vi i fr i / ' I I, f 0 X t--1- --'-± ; , ,b __ . . ----,1 ir—L_H___I . • . I; . I I / i i I•••—!— !! .• i_____________: . ; i i ! • i • • ;1 _, ---;_____,__1_ .1' o p i 1.7_ I I i I H , ,____... ; 1 1 -1,, j----1 1111 1 I 1 1 I -, • I ED I - - - J- - —11 • • i , -: , • ; • - I tr 1 ____ , ; ; ; I I __I ' 1-17----'; ; t 1 1----• '"---1 C• /NO ON , , , , . , , 1--- ,- " , - • , I r r , I , i , , ! • . ,-- , , 1111111111i1111 -n,. i , ---i--,---; 1.411fai 1-', . ' II. !-- 4- •• ,----, , • ,• n...n, p -; : - , _ _,T,„ i,- , . . , _ ., r --'-1 ..., • ---------I-•—1 III 1 . I P-' I ,,/,' ' • -—- . . --• . , _______ ••- _,1 _ 1 —r—r----11--_;_t_l___Nr... ra*— --- h 1 '-. --Y-• !.--- '".'-' ; ; - - .c.; . . ,----:•--J,...., . ; . . __LC:17in t_:. -•<\i'.-4".4-' . . . - - _,c----. 1-•-ri-,-:-F•r_.,• ii.6...u_i, _..., • ;-•--r--- . --- , 0---) ! i I );Ay.. . -.., -p--Nt - ; :-----------.: , _ ----,----, P-,,,,,----_ _-_-t...„,--,.„..--,-; ,LI I.:_,- , T_--T , .......r......_..,.......„......4 i____ ____:___ . ! -I I I I I II 7.- - .'-- -7,---; ___ .. .!---,0 . !-----------__,1 .--. .••,-, l • -- I i i -- / 7\\ri_=71.. -„, ---t-_r-. ' r•-,1—/Z:=71 1__..1 1-----; -1-__-...,,:------,..--- •., r_. :_____,_,,_,,. ,. ----, ,--t--•0 r L__ il_ : - --I - . , 1--1 1 , 1 u __. ___. i .: ‘140.01 I I .----:r-----I-r_w,r7,1 ; r---, 1 i -______I--i; h L--1N11 I-I.;i 1 ' I ' I • i i t! 'A . ,...- !---:r • 7,•-11-.1; tr 1 f I ; L T-FT-il I ii I . I[1 i I .4 i , ? , ---A...././ lioase Metropolitan King County Council Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee Revised Staff Report Agenda Item: 5 Name: Lauren Smith Proposed Ord: 2005-0045 Date: February 8, 2005 Attending: Paul Reitenbach, Senior Policy Analyst, DDES SUBJECT: Adopting amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies; amending the urban growth area boundary map, the interim potential annexation areas map, and the urban separator map. BACKGROUND: The Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) is a formal body comprised of elected officials from King County, Seattle, Bellevue, the Suburban Cities, and Special Districts. The GMPC was created in 1992 by interlocal agreement, in response to a provision in the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requiring cities and counties to work together to adopt Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs). Under GMA, countywide planning policies serve as the framework for each individual jurisdiction's comprehensive plan, and ensure countywide consistency with respect to land use planning efforts. Nov As provided for in the interlocal agreement, the GMPC developed and recommended the Countywide Planning Policies, which were adopted by the King County Council and ratified by the cities. Subsequent amendments to the CPPs follow the same process: recommendation by the GMPC, adoption by the King County Council, and ratification by the cities. Amendments to the CPPs become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least 30% of the city and county governments representing at least 70% of the population of King County. A city shall be deemed to have ratified an amendment to the CPPs unless, within 90 days of adoption by King County, the city by legislative action disapproves it. SUMMARY: Proposed Ordinance 2005-0045 would amend the Countywide Planning Policies by making adjustments to the Urban Growth Area, Potential Annexation Area, and Urban Separator maps. As part of the 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update, the King County Council made several changes to the urban growth area boundary. Because the GMA requires the County's comprehensive plan to be consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies, these amendments necessitate changes to the Urban Growth Area map in the countywide planning document. The county's redesignation of lands from rural to urban also requires changes to the Potential Annexation Area map, since urban areas are to eventually be annexed by cities. In one instance, a County amendment would require a change to the Urban Separator map. Because the Council had already made the policy decision(s) to amend the Urban Growth Area in the 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update, a detailed discussion of the individual map amendments is not included in this staff report. Instead, brief descriptions of each of the proposed changes are included 'err below: Q\COMMITTEE GM-2005\FINAL Staff Reporls12005-0045 CPPs-Map Changes REVISED doc 2/9/2005 3.03 PM Amendments to the countywide Urban Growth Area Boundary map: • Redesignation of Redmond's Perrigo Park from rural to urban. • Redesignation of the Enumclaw Golf Course from rural to urban. • Redesignation of a small parcel on Cougar Mountain from rural to urban. • Redesignation of about 120 acres of the Bear Creek Urban Planned Development from urban to rural. • Redesignation of approximately 128 acres east of Kirkland (described as Willows Road) from rural to urban. _ • Redesignation of Covington Park from rural to urban. • Redesignation of about 6 acres including the Renton Christian Center and some land owned by King County from rural to urban. • Redesignation of about 9 acres adjacent to the Issaquah Spar Road from rural to urban, as well as the redesignation of a small (less than 1/4 acre) parcel in the same area from urban to rural. Amendments to the countywide Potential Annexation Areas map: • Inclusion of Perrigo Park in Redmond's potential annexation area. • Inclusion of the Enumclaw Golf Course in Enumclaw's potential annexation area. • Inclusion of the Willows Road area in Kirkland's potential annexation area. • Inclusion of Covington Park within Covington's potential annexation area. • Inclusion of about 6 acres including the Renton Christian Center and some land owned by King County within Renton's potential annexation area. • Inclusion of about 9 acres adjacent to the Issaquah Spar Road within Issaquah's potential annexation area. • Resolution of a potential annexation area that was formerly claimed by both Sea Tac and Tukwila; this area is now within Tukwila's potential annexation area'. Amendments to the countywide Urban Separator map: • Creation of a new urban separator in the Willows Road area. • Proposed Ordinance 2005-0045 would also ratify these changes on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County, as required by Countywide Planning Policy FW-1, Step 9. STAFF ANALYSIS: Council staff, through its participation on the GMPC's interjurisdictional staff team, has had an opportunity to review the proposed CPP map amendments, and concurs that they are the same map amendments made by the King County Council in the 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update. A more thorough description of the proposed changes is included as Attachment 3 to this staff report. Additionally, documentation on the use restrictions of the Enumclaw Golf Course, Covington Park and Perrigo Park is included as Attachment 4 to this staff report, pursuant to King County Comprehensive Plan Policy U-104. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Documentation of use restrictions for Enumclaw Golf Course, Covington Park and Perrigo Park. ' This is the only proposed change that was not driven by amendments to the King County Comprehensive Plan, but by the actions of cities working to resolve their PAAs. 0:\COMMITTEE GM-20051FINAL Staff Reports\2005-0045 CPPs-Map Changes REVISED doc 2/9/2005 3 03 PM ATTACHMENT 1 Enumclaw Golf Course Summary of Use Restrictions Background: King County conveyed the Enumclaw Golf Course, an asset of the County park system, to the City of Enumclaw in 2003. At that time portions of the golf course were outside the urban growth boundary. Section 3 of the interlocal agreement transferring the Golf Course states: The King County Executive's proposed 2004 Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendments will include a proposal to modify the City's urban growth boundary so that it will encompass the golf course property in a manner that will enable the City at its discretion to annex the Property into its municipal boundary. The 2004 King County Comprehensive Plan amendments, as adopted by the King County Council, include policy language to facilitate this referenced modification in the urban growth boundary. Specifically, policy U-104(c) regarding rural park properties adjacent to the urban growth line facilitates an urban designation of such park properties where"the property is or was formerly a King County park and is being or has been transferred to a city." Park Use Restrictions on the Enumclaw Golf Course: Section 2.1 of the interlocal agreement transferring the golf course to the City of Enumclaw places several restrictive covenants on the property which run with the land, including but not limited to the following: "The City covenants that the Property shall continue to be used in perpetuity for park or recreation purposes unless other equivalent lands or facilities within the county or the city are received in exchange therefore and the replacement lands or facilities are used in perpetuity for park or recreation purposes." "...the Property shall not be transferred or conveyed except by agreement providing that such lands shall continue to be used for the purposes contemplated by[the ordinance authorizing the Forward Thrust bond program], and that the Property shall not be converted to a different use than the park and recreation uses contemplated...unless other equivalent lands and facilities within the County or City shall be received in exchange therefore." *kilo Perrigo Park Summary of Use Restrictions 401100 Background: The City of Redmond had its grand opening of Perrigo Park in 2004 after spending $1.5 million to acquire the park property and $6 million to develop the property into a city park. The City initially purchased Perrigo Park property in 1994 with funding provided by the Washington State Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC). The City expanded Perrigo Park upon the acquisition of additional property purchased in 1997. Together, the four parcels that make up Perrigo Park today are 25.86 acres in size. At the time Perrigo Park opened the park was located adjacent to the City and urban growth boundary. The adopted 2004 King County Comprehensive Plan amendments include policy language to facilitate modification of the urban growth boundary to include rural park properties adjacent to a city, with city commitment to use the property in perpetuity for park purposes. Specifically, policy U-104(a) facilitates an urban designation of such park properties where "the property is no more than 30 acres in size and was acquired by the city prior to 1994". With County Council adoption of these amendments in September 2004, and subsequent adoption and ratification of the countywide planning policies, the urban growth boundary will be moved to include Perrigo Park, which will enable the City to annex the property into its municipal boundary. Restrictions on Use of Perrigo Park: The initial park property was purchased with funding provided by the Washington State Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC). The grant agreement between the City of Redmond and IAC places several restrictive covenants on the property which run with the land, including but not limited to the following contained in Section 15(f): Deed of Right to Use Land for Public Recreation Purposes The Public Agency agrees to execute an instrument or instruments which contain (1) a legal description of the property acquired under this Project Agreement, (2) a conveyance to the State of Washington of the right to use the described real property forever for outdoor recreation purposes, and (3) a restriction on conversion of use of the land in the manner provided in RCW 43.99.100, whether or not the real property covered by the deed is marine recreation land..." Pursuant to this agreement, the City executed two deeds conveying to the State the right to use this property for outdoor recreation purposes and providing restrictions on the conversion of use of the land; the deeds also included a legal description of the properties. The City expanded Perrigo Park in 1997 with the acquisition of additional property purchased with city park bond funding. The Redmond City Council adopted Resolution No. 802 and Ordinance No. 1585 authorizing bonds for the purpose of"providing money to pay the capital costs of acquiring land for parks, recreation facilities and open spaces, and renovating existing park and recreation facilities"; a proposition authorizing issuance of bonds for parks, recreation and open space acquisition and renovation was approved by Redmond voters at the general election on November 7, 1989_ Because the parcels acquired in 1997 were purchased with park bond funds,they are restricted to park purposes. Proposed Conservation Easement between the City of ,414.9 Covington and the Cascade Land Conservancy Document dated November 1, 2004 Prepared by: City of Covington The City of Covington and the Cascade Land Conservancy have reached a tentative agreement to execute a Conservation Easement that will encumber a City-owned 29.8 acre parcel, of property, purchased by the city in 2003 for park uses. Through the Easement, the City, as Grantor, would protect the subject property from residential or commercial development in perpetuity, reserving to the City the ability to build, own and operate a public park on the site. The acreage itself would be divided into two sections referred to within the Easement as Section A and Section B (See attached Map). Section A, which contains some wetland areas and the Little Soos Creek, will be primarily unimproved open space, and will'tow, low impact recreational activities such as hiking and use as a nature conservancy. This Section will be managed so as to conserve fish and wildlife habitat, buffer aquifer recharge areas and protect open space. Some improvements are contemplated such as removal of dirt bike jumps and the maintenance of a non-commercial City-run tree nursery for replacing street trees and other plants on public works projects. Rights are also reserved on Section A to facilitate future improved trail access to the Soos Creek Park and Regional Trail. Section B would be used as an improved community park containing two soccer/multi-use fields, a softball diamond and stands, tennis courts, playgrounds, picnic shelters, basketball court and a fieldhouse. There will also be public restroom facilities and parking. This section of the park is planned for active recreation but will be blended with the adjacent open space to provide a harmonious buffer between the urban residential development on the east side of 180th Ave SE and the rural residential areas to the west and north. Any development rights forfeited by the City would be retained by the Cascade Land Conservancy and could be later sold to developers as part of a Transfer of Development Rights program. The Easement requires, however, that any monies generated from the sale of these development rights be utilized to create new conservancy zones within the City of Covington's defined Area of Interest. Both the City and the Cascade Land Conservancy are excited about this unique approach to conserving the environment and buffering the urban/rural boundaries with low impact improvements that provide needed recreational opportunities to both City and rural residents. In combination with the new Covington Aquatics Center at Tahoma, the park and adjacent pool facility will provide a campus- like recreation zone that will also allow the City to partner with the Tahoma School District and Tahoma High School on a variety of recreation and community projects. The School District and City are excited about jointly utilizing their resources as this will result in efficient use of tax dollars, especially in times where the Citizens have asked their public entities to maintain conservative budgets. Excerpts of the Easement language are provided in the attached Exhibit A. The legislative goals of the Growth Management Act include directives to "retain open space, enhance recreational opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks and recreation facilities" RCW 36.70A.020(9). Within the City of Covington (City), additional Nam"' recreational opportunities are needed to meet the demand of an increasing population. Restricting the uses of Section A to passive recreation and Section B to passive and active recreation would advance one of the Growth Management Act's planning goals of developing parks and recreation facilities. �.3 (7) ************************************************************************ Grantor intends that the Conservation Values of the Protected Property be preserved and maintained by permitting the continuation of only those land uses on the Protected Property that do not significantly impair or interfere with the Conservation Values. Such uses existing at the time of this grant include, without limitation, active/passive recreational, natural, scenic, open space and educational uses consistent with this Easement. 4 (E) ************************************************************************ Grantee is a publicly supported, tax-exempt nonprofit organization, qualified under Sections 501(c)(3) and 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and also qualified as a nonprofit nature conservancy corporation under RCW 64.04.130 and 84.34.250, whose primary purpose is to promote the preservation of open space and critically important ecological systems in King County and surrounding counties in Washington State. Nary P. ti S (Ei) ************************************************************************ The purpose of this Easement is to implement the mutual intentions of Grantor and Grantee as expressed in the above Recitals, which are incorporated herein by this reference, and in the provisions that follow, to assure that Section A will be retained forever predominantly in its natural, scenic, passive recreational and/or open space condition and, in addition, that Section B will be retained forever predominantly as an active recreational site, and to prevent any use of, or activity on the Protected Property that will significantly impair or interfere with the Conservation Values of the Protected Property(the"Purpose"). Grantor intends that this Easement will confine the use of,or activity on the Protected Property to such uses and activities that are consistent with this Purpose. j).c (i ************************************************************************ Any use of, or activity on the Protected Property inconsistent with the Purpose of this Easement is prohibited, and Grantor acknowledges and agrees that it will not conduct, engage in or permit any such use or activity. Without limiting the generality of this subsection, the following uses of, or activities on the Protected Property, though not an exhaustive list, are inconsistent with the Purpose of this Easement and shall be prohibited; except as expressly provided for and authorized in Section V above. Now t2_- 13 (A) 44410, KING COUNTY 1200 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle,WA 98104 Signature Report February 14, 2005 Ordinance 15122 Proposed No. 2005-0046.2 Sponsors Constantine 1 AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to the 2 Countywide Planning Policies; revising targets for new 3 household and job growth for the period 2002-2022; 4 ratifying the amended Countywide Planning Policies for 5 unincorporated King County; and amending Ordinance 6 10450, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 and 7 Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 8 20.10.040. 9 10 11 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY: 12 SECTION 1. Findings. The council makes the following findings: 13 A. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Growth 14 Management Planning Council recommended King County 2012 -Countywide Planning 15 Policies (Phase I)in July 1992, under Ordinance 10450. 444.10, 1 Ordinance 15122 16 B. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Phase II 17 amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies on August 15, 1994,under Ordinance 18 _11446. 19 C. The Growth Management Planning Council met on September-15, 2004, and 20 voted to recommend amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies; 21 revising targets for new household and job growth for the period 2002-2022 by amending 22 Table LU-1. 23 SECTION 2. Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 are 24 each hereby amended to read as follows: 25 Phase II. 26 A. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning 27 Policies attached to Ordinance 11446 are hereby approved and adopted. 28 B. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning '"_ 29 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027. 30 C. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012- Countywide Planning 31 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421. 32 D. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning 33 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260. 34 E. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning 35 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415. 36 F. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning 37 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858. 2 Ordinance 15122 38 G. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning -*Iv 39 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390. 40 H. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning 41 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391. - 42 I. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning 43 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392. 44 J. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012- Countywide Planning 45 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14652. 46 K. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning 47 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 14653. 48 L. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning 49 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14654. " is►' 50 M. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning 51 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14655. 52 N. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012- Countywide Planning 53 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 14656. 54 O. The Phase II amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning 55 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment A to Ordinance 14844. 56 P. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning 57 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment A to this ordinance. 58 SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.040 are 59 each hereby amended to read as follows: 60 Ratification for unincorporated King County. fir✓ 3 Ordinance 15122 61 A. Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 10450 for the purposes 62 specified are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. 63 B. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 64 10840 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. 65 C. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 66 11061 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. 67 D. The Phase H amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning 68 Policies adopted by Ordinance 11446 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of 69 unincorporated King County. 70 E. The amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning Policies, as 71 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027 are hereby ratified on behalf of the 72 population of unincorporated King County. 73 F. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 74 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 75 population of unincorporated King County. 76 G. The amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning Policies, as 77 shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 78 population of unincorporated King County. 79 H. The amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning Policies, as 80 shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415, are hereby ratified on behalf of 81 the population of unincorporated King County. 4 Ordinance 15122 82 I. The amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning Policies, as 83 shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858, are hereby ratified on behalf of 84 the population of unincorporated King County. 85 J. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies, as 86 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 87 population of unincorporated King County. 88 K. The amendments to the King County 2012- Countywide Planning Policies, as 89 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 90 population of unincorporated King County. 91 L. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 92 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 93 population of unincorporated King County. '4%w 94 M. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 95 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14652, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 96 population of unincorporated King County. 97 N. The amendments to the King County 2012- Countywide Planning Policies, as 98 shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 14653, are hereby ratified on behalf of 99 the population of unincorporated King County. 100 O. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 101 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14654, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 102 population of unincorporated King County. Nosy 5 Ordinance 15122 103 P. The amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning Policies, as 104 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14655, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 105 population of unincorporated King County. 106 Q. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 107 shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 14656, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 108 population of unincorporated King County. 109 R. The amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning Policies, as 110 shown by Attachment A to Ordinance 14844, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 111 population of unincorporated King County. 112 S. The amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning Policies, as 6 Ordinance 15122 113 shown by Attachment A to this ordinance, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population 114 of unincorporated King County. 115 Ordinance 15122 was introduced on 1/31/2005 and passed by the Metropolitan King County Council on 2/14/2005, by the following vote: Yes: 12 -Mr. Phillips, Mr. von Reichbauer, Ms. Lambert, Mr. Pelz, Mr. Dunn, Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Hammond, Mr. Gossett, Ms. Hague, Mr. Irons, Ms_ Patterson and Mr. Constantine No: 0 Excused: 1 - Ms. Edmonds KING COUNTY COUNCI GCO Y,WAS 2'1. ON Larry Phillips,Chair '1421 b — " ATTEST: Anne Noris,Clerk of the Council APPROVED this day of . ' ,2005. iff i(r ; Ron Si s,County Executive v 2 O i7 ��I1 '-1 J rn '" 0 IV Attachments A.Motion No.04-4 - r ? o 7 • 15122 September 15,2004 Attachment A Sponsored By: Executive Committee /cf 1 MOTION NO. 04-4 2 A MOTION by the Growth Management Planning Council of King 3 County recommending the amendment of the Countywide Planning 4 Policies,revising targets for new household and job growth for the 5 period 2001-2022 by amending Table LU-1: 2001-2022 Household 6 and Employment Growth Targets which will be located in Section 1II. 7 C of the Countywide Planning Policies_ 8 • 9 WHEREAS, the 1994 Countywide Planning Policies established a housing target range for 10 each city and for King County; and 11 12 WHEREAS, the Growth Management Planning Council adopted revised household and 13 job growth targets for the period 2001 — 2022 on September 25, 2002; and 14 15 WHEREAS, on May 26, 2004, the Growth Management Planning Council met and 16 discussed revisions to the adopted household and employment targets for the period 2001- 17 2022_ 18 THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY 19 HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS: 20 21 The attached "Revised Table LU-I: 2001-2022 Household and Employment 22 Growth Targets"is hereby recommended for adoption in the Countywide Planning - 23 Policies to revise the household growth targets and potential annexation area targets 24 to reflect the target extension from January 1,2001 through December 31, 2022_ 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 ,oar 36 37 UGMPC/04GMPC/Mot04-4-doc — 1 - H122 2 3 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on 4 September 15, 2004 in open session and signed by the chair of GMPC. 5 6 7 8 10 & __illat1 A 11 '• ms,C air, Growth Management Planning Council 12 Attachment: 13 1. Revised Table LU-I: 2001-2022 Household and Employment Growth Targets 14 (file LU-1_Rev2004.xls)_ 15 16 17 UGMPC/O4GMPC/Mot04-4.doc - 2 - .. f4d1mM1 • 1 . 15122 7 x-r - .Pair: ,_ "err"_. 5.:",,_ > < ,,,4,„._,_,,,„„,,,:,,,,,,,,,„,„„,,_,„,(� .+� C. :Fad t,.+^�n ,Sit 9 L �^=,. ... ,} -,dP 4--Skjy%):21.1.:,,,.0-1 45.4",,..4:11-„,,,-„,,,,,,... .,,,,x. _ Housing K Household PAA H31 Job Capacity in FAA lob Subareas Capacity in Job Target Target PAA• Target FAA' Target South King County Algona 298 108 - Auburn =Man 2,635 - ( $lY 252 252 Black Diamond 1,099 2,525 Burien 1,552 1,712 Covington : _r_ ..3 900 Des Moines 1,576 5_=J= ;Z:=_: 1,695 Federal Way 6,188 3,754`,•::-'w=1- - 7,481 134 134 Kent 4,284 1,763 , _ .•Ir. 11,500 s Milton 50 106 ' -=;'`k;-. 3 1,054 Maple Valley 300 804 Normandy Park 100 67 Pacific i-- i 127r-A-..:-.1_'= -- z; Renton 6,198 5,622 "i; 27,597 458 458 SeaTac 4,478 *J 9,288 �5-" i Tukwila 3,200' 'ice =ti 16,000 = = Nom= r'= Unincorp King County 4,935 , <'T J-' }.1. 2 _ 2,582 --"'��'� �- Total 42,355 15,952 4,935 89,500 2,582 2,582 East King County Beaux Arts Village 3 Bellevue 10,117 184 178 40,000 27 27 Bothell 1,751 603, 584 2,000 174 174 Clyde Hill 21 Hunts Point 1 _ Issaquah 3,993 827r 802 14,000 1 I Kcrunore 2,325 2,800. Kirkland 5,480 770 747 8,800 221 221 Medina 31 - Mercer Island 1,437 800 +'' Newcastle 863 1 1 500 Redmond 9,083 402 390 21,760 21 21 Sammamish 3,842 1,230 Woodinville 1,869 2,000 Yarrow Point 28 _ Unincorp King County 6,801 •"4,222 "4,099 4,637 "4,193 •'4,193 Total 47,645 7,009 6,801 98,527 4,637 4,637 Sea-Shore Lake Forest Park 538 455 Seattle 51,510 92,083 Shoreline 2,651 2,618 Unincorp King County"' 1,670 1,670 1,670 694 1,544 694 Total 56,369 1,670 1,670 95,850 1,544 694 Rural Cities*••• Carnation 246 75 Duvall 1,037 1,125 Enumclaw 1,927 1,125 North Bend 636 1,125 Skykomish 20 Snoqualmie 1,697 1,800 Total 5,563 5,250 King County Total 151,932 289,127 'FAA:Potential Annexation Area in Unincorporated King County Urban Area;••Beat Creek UHT,•'•North Highline •••'The Rural Cities'targets arc for the current city limits and rural expansion area for each city. Thus the methodology for adjusting targets as annexations occur rs not applicable to the rural cities. Editor's Nose Source for 2001 housing and job capacity figures for PAAs is the 2002 King County Buildable Lands evaluation. Subarea unincorporated targets were allocated to PAAs based on proportional capacity. Revised per Motion 04-4,Sept 2004. Metropolitan King County Council Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee Revised Staff Report Agenda Item: 4 Name: Lauren Smith Proposed Ord: 2005-0046 Date: February 14, 2005 Attending: Paul Reitenbach, Senior Policy Analyst, DDES COMMITTEE ACTION: The Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee recommended a "DO Pass Substitute" recommendation for Proposed Ordinance 2005-0046. The committee passed amendment A-1, a technical amendment to replace the current attachment to the ordinance (GMPC Motion 04-3)with a new attachment (GMPC Motion 04-4). The transmittal package included the wrong GMPC Motion. SUBJECT: Adopting amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies; revising targets for new household and job growth for the period 2002-2022. BACKGROUND: The Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) is a formal body comprised of elected officials from King County, Seattle, Bellevue, the Suburban Cities, and Special Districts. The GMPC was created in 1992 by interlocal agreement, in response to a provision in the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requiring cities and counties to work together to adopt Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs). Under GMA, countywide planning policies serve as the framework for each individual jurisdiction's comprehensive plan, and ensure countywide consistency with respect to land use planning efforts. As provided for in the interlocal agreement, the GMPC developed and recommended the Countywide Planning Policies, which were adopted by the King County Council and ratified by the cities. Subsequent amendments to the CPPs follow the same process: recommendation by the GMPC, adoption by the King County Council, and ratification by the cities. Amendments to the CPPs become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least 30% of the city and county governments representing at least 70% of the population of King County. A city shall be deemed to have ratified an amendment to the CPPs unless, within 90 days of adoption by King County, the city by legislative action disapproves it. SUMMARY: Proposed Ordinance 2005-0046 would amend the Countywide Planning Policies by making technical adjustments to the household and employment growth targets. These adjustments were recommended by the Growth Management Planning Council through their unanimous approval of Motion 04-4 on September 15, 2004. 0\COMMITTEE GM-2005\FINAL Staff Reports G005-0046 Revised SR 2-14-05 doc 2%9.2005 2 19 PM Revisions to the growth targets were discussed by the GMPC at a meeting on May 26 and again on September 15, 2004. The proposed changes are as follows: 1. Allocating a 592-household target to the West Hill unincorporated area, which mistakenly was not assigned a household target during the last round of updates. 2. Adjusting Tukwila's growth targets to include projected new households and jobs in an area that was formerly claimed by both SeaTac and Tukwila (total change to Tukwila's growth targets: +8 households, +993 jobs). 3. A correction increasing the job target for the City of Kent's potential annexation area from 44 jobs to 287 jobs, commensurate with the employment capacity of the area. 4. An adjustment of household and job targets for Pacific and Auburn to reflect a de- annexation by Pacific and annexation by Auburn, and a shift of household targets from Pacific to Covington. Proposed Ordinance 2005-0046 would also ratify these changes on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County, as required by Countywide Planning Policy FW-1, Step 9. STAFF ANALYSIS: Council staff, through its participation on the GMPC's interjurisdictional staff team, has had an opportunity to review the proposed target adjustments, and concurs that they are technical in nature and have been approved by the affected jurisdictions via the GMPC action. A complete description of the proposed changes is included as Attachment 4 to this staff report. Nod • Q\COMMITTEE GM-2005\FINAL Staff Reports12005-0046 Revised SR 2=14-05 doc 2/912005 2.19 PM KING COUNTY Signature Report 1200 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle,WA 98104 4ka r February 14, 2005 Ordinance 15123 Proposed No. 2005-0047.2 Sponsors Constantine 1 AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to the 2 Countywide Planning Policies; designating downtown 3 Burien as an Urban Center; ratifying the amended 4 Countywide Planning Policies for unincorporated King 5 County; and amending Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as 6 amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 and Ordinance 10450, slow 7 Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C_ 20.10.040. 8 9 10 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY: 11 SECTION 1. Findings. The council makes the following findings: 12 A. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Growth 13 Management Planning Council recommended King County 2012 - Countywide Planning 14 Policies (Phase I) in July 1992, under Ordinance 10450. 15 B. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Phase II 16 amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies on August 15, 1994, under Ordinance 17 11446_ Nov 1 • Ordinance 15123 18 C. The Growth Management Planning Council met on September 15, 2004, and Nusii 19 voted to recommend amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies 20 designating downtown Burien as an Urban Center. 21 SECTION 2. Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 are 22 each hereby amended to read as follows: 23 Phase II. 24 A. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning 25 Policies attached to Ordinance 11446 are hereby approved and adopted. 26 B. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning 27 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027. 28 C. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012- Countywide Planning 29 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421. 30 D. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning 31 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260. 32 E. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012- Countywide Planning 33 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415. 34 F. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012- Countywide Planning 35 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858. 36 G. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning 37 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390. 38 H. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning 39 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391. 2 Ordinance 15123 40 I. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning *"'' 41 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392. 42 J. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning 43 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14652. - 44 K. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning 45 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 14653. 46 L. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning 47 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14654. 48 M. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning 49 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14655. 50 N. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning 51 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 14656. 1111 " 52 O. The Phase II amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning 53 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment A to Ordinance 14844. 54 P. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning 55 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment A to this ordinance. 56 SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.040 are 57 each hereby amended to read as follows: 58 Ratification for unincorporated King County. 59 A. Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 10450 for the purposes 60 specified are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. 61 B. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 62 10840 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. 3 Ordinance 15123 63 C. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 64 11061 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County_ 65 D. The Phase H amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning 66 Policies adopted by Ordinance 11446 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of 67 unincorporated King County. 68 E. The amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning Policies, as 69 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027 are hereby ratified on behalf of the 70 population of unincorporated King County. 71 F. The amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning Policies, as 72 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 73 population of unincorporated King County. 74 G. The amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning Policies, as 75 shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 76 population of unincorporated King County. 77 H. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 78 shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415, are hereby ratified on behalf of 79 the population of unincorporated King County. 80 I. The amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning Policies, as 81 shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858, are hereby ratified on behalf of 82 the population of unincorporated King County. 83 J. The amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning Policies, as 84 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 85 population of unincorporated King County. 4 • Ordinance 15123 86 K. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as Noisy 87 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 88 population of unincorporated King County. 89 L. The amendments to the King County 2012- Countywide Planning Policies, as 90 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 91 population of unincorporated King County. 92 M. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 93 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14652, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 94 population of unincorporated King County. 95 N. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 96 shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 14653, are hereby ratified on behalf of 97 the population of unincorporated King County. Nay 98 O. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 99 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14654, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 100 population of unincorporated King County. 101 P. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 102 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14655, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 103 population of unincorporated King County. 104 Q. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 105 shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 14656, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 106 population of unincorporated King County. • err 5 Ordinance 15123 107 R. The amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning Policies, as 108 shown by Attachment A to Ordinance 14844, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 109 population of unincorporated King County. 110 S. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies, as • 6 Ordinance 15123 111 shown by Attachment A to this ordinance, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population "t►' 112 of unincorporated King County. 113 Ordinance 15123 was introduced on 1/31/2005 and passed by the Metropolitan King County Council on 2/14/2005,by the following vote: Yes: 12 -Mr. Phillips, Mr. von Reichbauer, Ms. Lambert, Mr. Pelz, Mr. Dunn,Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Hammond, Mr. Gossett, Ms. Hague,Mr. Irons, Ms. Patterson and Mr. Constantine No: 0 Excused: 1 - Ms. Edmonds KING COUNTY COUNC KING C Y,WAS -$NG f N Larry Phinips,Chair B`^' t"' ?``'`- ATTEST: "ATTEST_ Anne Noris,Clerk of the Council APPROVED this O12 day of ..,0.1/��;,r ,2005. 4Lrof/,,A/Lti,drid Ron Sims, ' ounty Executive �l rc7 in cx3 r- cri Attachments A. Motion No.04-3 O Ph • C lJ` C) (ft 7 15123 3 September 15, 2004 Attachment A Sponsored By: Executive Committee 1 . MOTION NO. 04-3 2 A MOTION to amend the Countywide Planning Policies by 3 designating Downtown Burien as an Urban Center. Downtown 4 Burien is added to the Iist of Urban Centers following 5 Countywide Planning Policy LU-39. 6 7 8 WHEREAS, A goal of the Growth Management Act is to encourage development in Urban 9 Areas where adequate public facilities exist or can be provided in an efficient manner; Noe 10 11 WHEREAS, Policy LU-39 of the Countywide Planning Policies of King County describes 12 the criteria for Urban Center designation; - 13 14 WHEREAS, Policy LU-40 of the Countywide Planning Policies of King County describes 15 standards for planned land uses within Urban Centers; 16 17 WHEREAS, the City of Burien has demonstrated that Downtown Burien meets the criteria 18 for designation as an Urban Center;and - 19 20 WHEREAS, King County Comprehensive Plan Policy U-106 supports the development of 21 Urban Centers to meet the region's needs for housing, jobs, services, culture and 22 recreation_ 23 24 25 26 27 - 28 • 29 30 31 32 UIGMPc/2002cMpcJMofior,02 6 doc 15123 1 2 3 4 THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY 5 HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS: 6 7 Downtown Burien is designated as an Urban Center_ The list of Urban Centers following 8 Countywide Planning Policy LU-39 is modified to include Downtown Burien. 9 10 11 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on 12 September 15,2004 in open session and signed by the chair of GMPC. 13 14 15 16 17 % 4, 18 Ron Sims, Chair, Growth Management Planning Council UGMPC/2002GM PC/Motion02-6_doc Metropolitan King County Council Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee Revised Staff Report Agenda Item: 3 Name: Lauren Smith Proposed Ord: 2005-0047 Date: February 15, 2005 Attending: Scott Greenberg, Community Development Director, City of Burien COMMITTEE ACTION: The Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee recommended a "DO Pass Substitute" recommendation for Proposed Ordinance 2005-0047. The committee passed amendment A-1, a technical amendment to replace the current attachment to the ordinance (GMPC Motion 04-4) with a new attachment (GMPC Motion 04-3). The transmittal package included the wrong GMPC Motion. SUBJECT: Adopting amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies; designating downtown Burien as an Urban Center. BACKGROUND: '418"' The Growth Management Planning Council and Countywide Planning Policies The Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) is a formal body comprised of elected officials from King County, Seattle, Bellevue, the Suburban Cities, and Special Districts. The GMPC was created in 1992 by interlocal agreement, in response to a provision in the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requiring cities and counties to work together to adopt Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs). Under GMA, countywide planning policies serve as the framework for each individual jurisdiction's comprehensive plan, and ensure countywide consistency with respect to land use planning efforts. As provided for in the interlocal agreement, the GMPC developed and recommended the Countywide Planning Policies, which were adopted by the King County Council and ratified by the cities. Subsequent amendments to the CPPs follow the same process: recommendation by the GMPC, adoption by the King County Council, and ratification by the cities. Amendments to the CPPs become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least 30% of the city and county governments representing at least 70% of the population of King County. A city shall be deemed to have ratified an amendment to the CPPs unless, within 90 days of adoption by King County, the city by legislative action disapproves it. SUMMARY: Proposed Ordinance 2005-0047 would amend the Countywide Planning Policies by adding downtown Burien to the list of Urban Centers in Policy LU-39. The ordinance would also ratify the change on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County, as required by Countywide Planning Policy FW-1, Step 9. Q-\COMMITTEE GM-2005\FINAL Staff Reports\2005-0047 CPPs-Bonen Urban Center REVISED doc 2/9/2005 2 52 PM STAFF ANALYSIS: Proposed Designation of Downtown Burien as an Urban Center .44110 The City of Burien requests that the King County Council amend the Countywide Planning Policies to add its downtown core to the list of Urban Centers in Policy LU-39. The city has followed the correct process for obtaining such a designation, starting with amending its own plans, policies and capital improvement programs, and also by securing the recommendation of the Growth Management Planning Council, which indicated its approval through the unanimous adoption of Motion 04-3 on September 15, 2004. The final steps in the center designation process are approval by the King County Council and ratification by the cities (see background section for a detailed explanation of the ratification process). Requirements for Urban Center Designation The Countywide Planning Policies describe Urban Centers as areas of concentrated employment and housing, with direct service by high-capacity transit and a wide range of other land uses. Collectively, they are expected to account for up to one half of King County's employment growth and one quarter of household growth over the next 20 years. The list of Urban Centers in Countywide Planning Policy LU-39 currently includes: • Auburn • Federal Way • Renton • Bellevue . Kirkland • Seattle (5) • Kent • Redmond (2) • Tukwila In order to be designated as an Urban Center,jurisdictions must meet specific criteria in the Countywide Planning Policies, including having planned land uses to accommodate: 1. A minimum of 15,000 jobs within one-half mile of a transit center; .41.110 2. At a minimum, an average of 50 employees per gross acre; and 3. At a minimum, an average of 15 households per acre. In addition to these requirements, Policy LU-40 states that fully realized Urban Centers shall be characterized by the following: a. Clearly defined geographic boundaries; b. An intensity/density of land uses sufficient to support effective and rapid transit; c. Pedestrian emphasis within the Center; d. Emphasis on superior urban design which reflects the local community; e. Limitations on single-occupancy vehicle usage during peak commute hours; r. A broad array of land uses and choices within those land uses for employees and residents; g. Sufficient public open spaces and recreational opportunities; and h. Uses which provide both daytime and nighttime activities in the Center. City of Burien's Existing and Planned Conditions The Countywide Planning Policies recognize that Urban Centers vary substantially in the number • of households and jobs they contain at the time of their initial designation, and thus the decision to designate an Urban Center is based on planned, not existing, densities. A jurisdiction shows its commitment to realizing these densities through its comprehensive plan policies, a supportive regulatory environment and a commitment to provide adequate infrastructure. 0\COMMITTEE GM-20051FINAL Staff Reports\2005-0017 CPPs-Bonen Urban Center REVISED.doc 2/9/2005 2.52 PM The table on the next page shows Burien's existing conditions, as well as future growth projections for the near future (10-20 years, or"mid-range), and beyond (20+ years, or"long-range). Thelong-range projected capacity envisions an Urban Center that is consistent with the requirements in the Countywide Planning Policies. I. Burien Urban Center— Existing and Planned Capacity Scenario Households Households/Acre Employees Employees/Acre Existing Conditions 1,433 4.1 4,025 11.4 Mid-Range Projected Capacity 2,689 7.6 8,692 24.6 Long-Range Projected Capacity 6,294 17.8 18,028 51.1 GMPC Recommendation The GMPC, through the unanimous adoption of Motion 04-3, has declared that the City of Burien has demonstrated its commitment to developing a fully realized Urban Center as envisioned in the Countywide Planning Policies. Specific findings include: • Burien's comprehensive plan and downtown plan establish the policy framework for achieving a compact, mixed use, transit and pedestrian oriented Urban Center. • Burien has implemented its plans with supportive land use and development regulations, including unlimited residential density in the downtown zone, increased height limits, design guidelines and streamlined permit processing. • The city has planned for future growth within the Urban Center through recent investments in utility, street and sidewalk upgrades, and in land assembly and Nals"` acquisition. These efforts include plans for a mixed-use Town Square development, and plans for a transit-oriented development project. Council staff, through its participation on the GMPC's interjurisdictional staff team, has had an opportunity to thoroughly review the city's proposal, and concurs that it meets the requirements in the Countywide Planning Policies for designation as an Urban Center. A complete analysis of the city's proposal as presented to the GMPC is included as Attachment 4 to this staff report. 0\COMMITTEE GM-20051FINAL Staff Reports\2005-0047 CPPs-Bunen Urban Center REVISED.doc 2/9/2005 2.52 PM CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Q^ AI#: /, Submitting Data: For Agenda of: Dept/Div/Board.. EDNSP Department/Strategic March 21, 2005 Planning Division Staff Contact Don Erickson(X-6581) Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. X Maplewood Addition Annexation Public Hearing Correspondence.. Ordinance Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Issue Paper Study Sessions Certification of Signatures Information Petition Recommended Action: Approvals: Council concur Legal Dept Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget N/A City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The Council accepted a 10%Notice of Intent petition to initiate annexation of approximately 60.5- acres located south of the Renton—Maple Valley Highway(SR 169) and north of the Cedar River, between the Maplewood Gardens neighborhood to the west and the Cedar River on the east. The proponents have submitted a 60%Petition to Annex that has been certified as sufficient by the King County Department of Assessments. Under State law, a public hearing must be held prior to acceptance of the Petition to Annex. Also,two public hearings are required to consider future zoning for this annexation. The proposed public hearing would consider the Petition to Annex and future R- 8 zoning, if the area comes into the City. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council set April 4,2005 for a public hearing to consider accepting the Maplewood Addition 60%Petition to Annex and future R-8 zoning. If Council accepts the 60%Petition,the Administration is seeking authority to send the Notice of Intent package to the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County for their review. Rentonnettagnbill/ bh CITY OF RENTON �.• PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: March 10, 2005 TO: Terri Briere, Council President Councilmembers VIA: .Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler FROM: Alex Pietsch, Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Don Erickson, x6581 SUBJECT: Maplewood Addition Annexation 60% Petition to Annex, and Future Zoning ISSUE: Now that the King County Department of Assessments has certified that at least 60% of the annexation area's assessed value is represented by signers of the petition to annex, does the City Council want to go ahead and accept this petition to annex; If the Council accepts this petition, does it support future R-8 zoning consistent with the current Residential Single Family land use designation shown on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map; and, If the Council accepts this petition does it wish to authorize the Administration to forward the Notice of Intent package to the Boundary Review Board for their review and evaluation? RECOMMENDATION: • Council accept the 60% Direct Petition to Annex for the 60.5-acre Maplewood Addition Annexation, support future zoning consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan land use designation, and authorize the Administration to forward the Notice of Intent package to the Boundary Review Board. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The City received the 10%Notice of Intent to Commence Annexation petition on December 8, 2004 and, after having the signatures certified by the King County Department of Assessments, Nifty held a public meeting on January 10, 2005 to consider it. Council at that time accepted the 10%Notice of Intent petition and authorized circulation of a 60%Petition to Annex, subject to property owners accepting future zoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Maplewood Addition Annexation—Acceptance of 60%Direct Petition March 10, 2005 Page 2 rrr Map, and agreeing to accept their proportionate share of the City's existing outstanding indebtedness. On March 7th, 2005, the City received a 60%Petition to annex for this 60.5-acre area and shortly thereafter, forwarded it to King County to verify its signatures and the assessed value they represent. On March 10th, 2005, the King County Department of Assessments notified the City, that based upon the listed taxpayers,parcel numbers, and assessed value, the signatures are sufficient under the provisions of RCW 35.13.002 to equal or exceed 60% of the area's assessed value. Reviewing departments raised a number of issues, including the area's deficient and aging infrastructure, and its exposure to flooding during major"100 year" or larger flood events. Renton is currently providing fire suppression services under contract to Fire District 25 and is often the "first responder" for police-related activity because of mutual assistance agreements with the King County Sheriff's Office. Water Utility staff noted that the area's independent water district faces serious challenges in the future because of its aging facilities, but also notes that the state health department has not declared a public health emergency because of unsafe drinking water. Renton, it should be noted, is not the designated water service provider for the area. If the existing water district were to divest, King County would decide whether Renton Utilities or the Cedar River Water and Sewer District would be the purveyor of choice. The City's Wastewater Utility staff have noted that whereas we are the designated "sewer service provider"for the area, there is no "health emergency,"as determined by the County Health Department, that would require Renton to provide sewer service to the area at this time. *wee Reviewing staff raised no significant obstacles to annexation but did note that the area is facing future costs associated with upgrading their water system if residents decide to do so. Flood control was another area mentioned in which the City may be able to assist residents in getting future improvements funding. Fiscally, the proposed annexation is estimated to cost the City approximately$40,304 a year in 2005 dollars. The proposed annexation complies with most relevant City annexation policies as well as the Objectives of the Boundary Review Board. As noted above, it is located within Renton's PAA and Renton is the designated sewer service provider for the area. The area also has reasonable boundaries being bordered on the north by a state highway and being bordered on the south as west by the Cedar River. In addition, it unifies a currently divided neighborhood (the western third was annexed to Renton in 1965) and should result in the more efficient delivery of urban services. CONCLUSION: The proposed Maplewood Addition 60%Petition to Annex appears to have sufficient signatures representing at least 60% of the area's assessed value. It also has reasonable boundaries and appears to comply with the Boundary Review Board's objectives. Because the City shares common concerns regarding flooding, erosion,water quality, and public safety, the proposed annexation, though fiscally costly, would still appear to be in the City's general welfare and interest. 0 King County N`"""` p Scott Noble Department of Assessments King County Administration Bldg. Assessor 500 Fourth Avenue,Room 708 Seattle,WA 98104-2384 (206)296-5195 FAX(206)296-0595 Email:assessor.lnfo@metrokc.gov www.m e t rokc.gov/assessor/ ANNEXATION PETITION CERTIFICATION THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the petition submitted March 8, 2005 to the King County Department of Assessments by Don Erickson, Senior Planner for the City of Renton, supporting the annexation to Renton of the properties described as the Maplewood Addition Annexation, has been examined, the property taxpayers, tax parcel numbers, and assessed value of properties listed thereon carefully compared with the King County tax roll records, and as a result of such examination, found to be sufficient under the provisions of the 44.10, New Section of Revised Code of Washington,Section 35.13.002. The Department of Assessments has not verified that the signature on the petition is valid through comparison with any record of actual signatures, nor that the signature was obtained or submitted in an appropriate time frame, and this document does not certify such to be the case. Dated this 10th day of March, 2005 ovioapoice414-1/ Scott Noble, King County Assessor I .®1202M / Y OF RENTON MAR 7 2005 PETITION TO ANNEX TO THE CITY OF RENTON RECEIVED UNDER RCW 35A.14.120 {:ITY CLERK'S OFFICE (60%Petition —Maplewood Addition Annexation) TO: THE CITY COUNCIL Of SUBMIITED BY: 0 L(d, .I 1.,e?fx I. THE CITY OF RENTON ADDRESS:Lop ., Fii 1055 South Grady Way t --f, Renton, WA 98055 PHONE: GA , , , —IS -- The undersigned are owners of not less than sixty percent(60%)in value according to the assessed valuation for general taxation, of real property located contiguous to the City of Renton. We hereby petition that such property be annexed to the City of Renton under the provisions of RCW 35A.14.120 et seq. The territory proposed to be annexed is within King County, Washington, and is contiguous to the City of Renton. A map (Exhibit A) and legal description(Exhibit B) are included as part of this petition. In response to a duly filed and considered "Notice of Intention"to commence annexation proceedings, the City Council of the City of Renton met with the initiating parties under RCW 35A.14.120 on January 24,2005. The City Council then determined that the City would accept the proposed annexation. Further,pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120, the undersigned petitioners agree to: err (1) Accept the City's simultaneous adoption of zoning consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan land use designation upon annexation; and (4) Assume their proportional share of the City's existing outstanding indebtedness. all as noted in the minutes of the Council meeting and contained in the electronic recording of such meeting. WHEREFORE,the undersigned property owners petition the City Council and ask: (a) That the City Council fix a date for a public hearing about such proposed annexation, cause a notice to be published and posted, specifying the time and place of such hearing, and inviting all persons who are interested to appear at the hearing and state their approval or disapproval of such annexation or to ask questions; and (b) That following such hearing, and consistent with any approval by the Boundary Review Board,the City Council by ordinance annex the above described territory to become part of the City of Renton, Washington, subject to its laws and ordinances then and thereafter in Now- force, and to receive City public services. Page 1 of 2 This three page form is one of a number of identical forms which comprise one petition seeking the annexation of the described territory to the City of Renton, Washington as above stated, and may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures. Nail WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement,shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the filing of this petition. (Names of petitioners should be in identical form as the same that appear on record in the chain of title to the real estate.) ' s; d i la 91:4: 1 f s s - � Stift;. J F :16;411.4 i s:t 1.,,,,-.,:,..,-. .,.„,._... s. t.._ ”..;:-.:-.=_,......... t .....' ...„... .::-.2:.....,..-:, ._.3 ..&ael.., _., C..i:!.:14 l,,,0 :_,......:. gctt 2'S 3 4Li 1. 4 L. os / 13 0SE ICISi q),2.30.-5-9 II(9 Bllirilill *A W: .• S Fc.rna►x o may/f St--/5 eP 2.. al�lQ�os4 t,. D '�,C4-17.10,5• 2 30,5`t I 17_,_ • /3227 5-6/57 . ,F 3. / - J 77e-i i s OA t 18`�i�5 A . L NL` -A A/S 0A/ 6J--- S t✓ >~,.,J (. I Lc13) 'Si c ' 4. 2I2IU6 A / S- a► a 3c./3—cQ38 iirialliaiimitrat /t' EZ- ..II 1,7-0 /3;Q6 5E/s/ 5. 4// >yc eize , ?8os11613-oci 15— ,../ /5 (93 f / l Sr 6. Air.; ' ''_ thf- ip ()\% o 35 /IS°bat/1.1,114, gip-700o, vor /, u gip . It , A C/ 6 AWL ! _ .L .,1r1 8. 9. 10. NIS Page 2 of 3 This three page form is one of a number of identical forms which comprise one petition seeking the annexation of the described territory to the City of Renton, Washington as above stated, and may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures. Niere WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement,shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the filing of this petition. (Names ofpetitioners should be in identical form as the same that appear on record in the chain of title to the real estate) � -_- - .✓ �'y -, sE ' Y.Si' , ' f'- fi Yti, • �+9.+i3 t y.�4�f1{ x...v.':a. :.-: s,..».. .�,.� ...o.�'...,✓s,�..0 a.,,..,.. u..,_T,,..,......t..: s s�,.:.,as..Fsx_.,. -,.A:.. ..,...i.»,`a".. .a�.a..t ,.....wr y. i .,,,` 1. Z ��z d�4wow Lowe- I s'd a7 / 3/ • q I 99 7Ooo7 23 us " _Ali ' 5i• .s.,' . -_ E 4. /d1 k y A3 % a s 2.. °�� t4 '. `7/9720042A ( L\ Ili .. _ve 3.*01111., .. ./ i`.iA. 1 .;/.AL : 1222 30 9 S$ 1121 G3i1kt A.f13335---a a. 15161' 4. G�� ;�r ,, R� N, i �-2z3�ci0(o1 e2'? y e(ty�r/ /9 9// /3 5119 -e.S� 5. m/2-6J / 4 ?pita,/G',(//ii2; 3O S-90 S' 6. 111111111 . 7. 8. 9. 10. Page 2 of 3 This three page form is one of a number of identical forms which comprise one petition seeking the annexation of the described territory to the City of Renton, Washington as above stated, and may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement,shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the filing of this petition. (Names of petitioners should be in identical form as the same that appear on record in the chain of title to the real estate.) 1011 1. // / 5 i 3 ,0 R. J_.23Db 9th5; i7' gip/Nits- 2.. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Page 2 of 3 This three page form is one of a number of identical forms which comprise one petition seeking the annexation of the described territory to the City of Renton, Washington as above stated, and may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures. Noy WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he or she is not a legal voter,or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement,shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the filing of this petition. (Names ofpetitioners should be in identical form as the same that appear on record in the chain of title to the real estate.) 77 7 a ' ;, - s :2_ ......x,...0 _ vS ,..,.:..,,......,...:,..,...a w ",x.,x ....e1.2 ,, ..d......+......,.....,.... .,. a�.stt„cw. ..1:?1U-1 _i ax..a.�3... .. 1Arrck...Specr-5 ti cit to 433 ' 9 i l • akd OSfytkovAujiatqlQsaex s '(1C\rlt....\' L - Sloc r► _5 ) 3 i aim 5.E )"9 + -00,,--, ,, -06., 9,.„ „,,,As 3. Z/. to Jc{v7e5 A-� mei- 4. i iz3 56- Iqy S4- Z-t2 X051159 t t-v& 14.14- ,,,, =4l O 5 '.44Vt Mpe !520..5-s E',ge;trio 5. Z Z.50 S”j�16 Ss MA.pie OM le-II R G -0 A6, j Pe_ E - 4 , ; 05- ,: I LiY3 V.T sl • kEw'- ' -' tvw'� 6. 924sNap i6Val le.i Rd 222geSg13Z Geo ' - >1 . ..CWS 7. glin /#1 .F t�-/ : ? itve c i s f ' 2 1' 1 .'Y; > > 7 i l„ .(r''w. :i �' (',1 c 512'ir6' 51 1 { =3-uc1i 'l kk cV1(GA 13321 Mai If CA . j 9. . ,, k ! 1 )105 clAdtt ; '_ri, tilAit- 1 '1, Itt %OS 2-2 :36SclO 0 10. Page 2 of 3 This three page form is one of a number of identical forms which comprise one petition seeking the annexation of the described territory to the City of Renton, Washington as above stated, and may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures. Nig WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he or she is not a.legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement,shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the filing of this petition. (Names of petitioners should be in identical form as the same that appear on record in the chain of title to the real estate.) s i`=3€P11tit ili€[,' �li,Iiil i„ ilk;LY4;ii� liou , .un �= 11. a � ,S . R S .L /1,/W1i /1t/4'1/' . .305 /--22 '996 E- 'Tv V C,) A, -,. .--Q- --7-7-<-ke. ..7---,:--) /.33-'.2 si.% ..-T �3 0✓ ��tt13. i1 ( /��-/ f - ,c..--/.4)2- Z./ /„,q_/D, y .i 1 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. ftwil Page 3 of 3 This three page form is one of a number of identical forms which comprise one petition seeking the annexation of the described territory to the City of Renton, Washington as above stated, and may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions,or signs a petition seeking an election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement,shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the filing of this petition. (Names of petitioners should be in identical form as the same that appear on record in the chain of title to the real estate) '77 i,. . - "e 3 _t"'.�,. ^z is ; • 4i4,4,-411.11z141. .�� .:. 11,01.,1 )1,41, _ j Et LG - f..� /99 y S e. y 1. 4/ /56 4 #4 4 -74 /4 441 as q t)% '. res Mry y2223e59a�/ 2. /,,./L• �o ��?• .pivti[sr> k roti / 9 9 2-/ , 3. 7-6/05- 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Page 2 of 3 This three page form is one of a number of identical forms which comprise one petition seeking the annexation of the described territory to the City of Renton, Washington as above stated, and may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures. ° rrr. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement,shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the filing of this petition. (Names ofpetitioners should be in identical form as the same that appear on record in the chain of title to the real estate.) i : f C �-4 ,'7 ,-17;511;(' `�3 �'�e( i 4 �i� Asa a :, is ', .t,'�.i -.i t4 e a t Alt 1)f'\A fj9 �# ' 1,44 if!)-1)ii „" :, +0i.(4,'i 44 '43°.--far# ' 4 ,;; .,+..z�r._1_. ...-civs .L...., --,—.�.,.x..,'7: '' e;......... ,. ,,, 2?,ia.w�_�.» �..a..r�,.r.....« s.,,. .. ,'.Ysv aR gg ,chi .i ...,�..l.�F� �tl..n:..,.n��1.,,. ai5i°5- I La., . �0 I4g17 l332b ,�/eSE �ax3o5-y/z5_ / 1. gEN`raN LJta- c'd- 6( .3 Aok-c L. E. . E.,0 1�f`t27 133icv /,�v�e St aaa 3 65-- t - — �. 2. El )c.`1`^^1 \ -e-v1/4A4,-)-- IL NA-)t l2r iu r 1...)43- i'euS1 /� , - i a 921-rru<;2 th,tt7k0 a.ez , , , , ...../d , , _ _ i , . ., -frk ' 71----14Z,Z,Z,Zi7Y-J--- �Mire _ � n LA. M� l S-70 2._�1 !32 0,)-e--5- 4. ,,,i___( -0c 72 ' , ion tic ,u, i 200 i y6 ✓ --0b,.r-, e. r'4N. . . 'f / 1;4) AL'r9t q .i % P 00,1 b 0 k h-e.frn us` LS Mr 136ThAve5 : �t 2- c' 6. rill ( RP1,-,-otit,J7t- 06 6 —© "7 t/d J 4-._-e -t max Ii -- 7. (X__" ,s 's—''' "s 5/z,K-oe, oU 8. .L i`L , �" 4-; Ph l-, . `fJ%.� 51 �g00coo;s�" v re ..76,, „._ 9. C (- L 5 i� ?C�'�)3 0 tl... '' C ,/awv,,;.-- --/(3 y g ,t--'v C;3yi' 1 i c- e ‘r).(6,0 :* Fid �G r0,/4l `,/ Page 2 of 3 This three page form is one of a number of identical forms which comprise one petition seeking the annexation of the described territory to the City of Renton, Washington as above stated, and may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement,shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the filing of this petition. (Names of petitioners should be in identical form as the same that appear on record in the chain of title to the real estate.) x�77777—._ �� z fid. c 3`('-)y �.+'�8{,I 'i'i^ tii ��gIA �� .+b.. ,- . FP -Fr u472y GARY el. LeXrr,e. /3>I4� S E /Sp 7.11.Sr; 1. 2.,205" /3, C�—_ t2e.v�,�, w�580s-., 918h7062L/5 Fe urs a y D 12, ,911O1e .1 LL 1 cX.) /Al y 22 se: /3y sr 5�c 2Z ilk?Z3 7 2.- "Na> Ac f), g,4/ 5 1 B l'L- 2o0l: a� ,s a. N\ ��, 9 'i'os wS' ( � 3. ,,,2/q70,( . Rif"-r r5A1 j J 4611697000_5- 0 4. 1l�l(�j /U � J, Ja 1,��5 1�r�1r�� t /� 9/g6-1'700256 W ,� � ' � .vt 9�e MDj L A1N 57j0 tt /1)36 %39,-`', Av 5. ))(1)6S - id 1 vri/ . 96'°.c 7i8T7,00/kc L� 6. Aspoimic, s ' , 340 'iGie`E A fc-033 — 133 0-- , ,,t-i Re AA9,,,) kAtk, 8. MI 41e)t 6 i ) 1307.1 5e, 14813 g g.,-1.3o5q/nom 9. ininiii...4 ii) . seemyky, tat qgo5z 10. viol Page 2 of 3 This three page form is one of a number of identical forms which comprise one petition seeking the annexation of the described territory to the City of Renton, Washington as above stated, and may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures. Irmo WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement,shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the filing of this petition. (Names of petitioners should be in identical form as the same that appear on record in the chain of title to the real estate.) :... f K ' 1r.a I 49 ' '�_ vim. . PT„, m._..,. w,,w ,1 ,-- ._. c.z:��k.� 1ai. <...".�....,n G� L -lerel;I %J f---v,/7.y 5 sr--- A-e 4-1 Lf ill SI a g�0 51� r.,,,g 1 rApow---)0741•1436/3 6,6-, /5-7 --' -d /9etiL 4 4d} . 21-23b5-1633 3. .?�� /.12,/ , � /,/,% / ,ty tc'r� (ice q t%�+l b O jO 4. p ` 1 mar -Oa 410 ty�0 / / '> 2'23°54 b3`7 5. 1 61,-+ • I d r i 174 i ( o i 3 ihm -I - 05 0 Aro , ',Itr,,i q. w CA. 2223°5 9057 6. 1111 s!�: T.por ao2O/ /j 9t4 Se /�,1 f _I‘_ ,i, a(�7t)7ii49S6�iS1Q (*)bc090 , 4/ a 7. ,�� / 6t let,, /�f / ,z9i,i- 2,31/..: 8. 9. 10. 44100. Page 2 of 3 This three page form is one of a number of identical forms which comprise one petition seeking the annexation of the described territory to the City of Renton, Washington as above stated, and may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions,or signs a petition seeking an election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the filing of this petition. (Names of petitioners should be in identical form as the same that appear on record in the chain of title to the real estate.) - , I .. • ,'',1.) ci 'l3 q11 eli Oil! SQ L 1,413 y�J,�p[ p �� i}9 p Yy 1)),:le 4� I')��l j 1�°�1ta -' Ei'1_131',0-f-,:',," . ,, , . ,..._s '_'s,�__ �S„.r4. ::.-L .,.=.. .2 _d.. _._.ak :„... .,a,.s ,-,L. ._ _., _x..,_ _. _..„...,N,..,,( .,...., _ : :: l yKf6 J30 SE ,,. .:1. niRw - i i4YA 4, l— • c 1, l q �� 5� 4th /l0 7/3 ,S - X :is •� , , . ,2. - W 1/. ,. 1(/i-/-41 1 /44 6 4 e t, fin% ft 57,2 8to/v .tel• - %:r�_,� k hini s. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 4400 Page 2 of 3 This three page form is one of a number of identical forms which comprise one petition seeking the annexation of the described territory to the City of Renton, Washington as above stated, and Nifty may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement,shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the filing of this petition. (Names of petitioners should be in identical form as the same that appear on record in the chain of title to the real estate) ti�k'`: t.-• /-itn, i'i`.�. sx t""'4' "== "a`:` gr z a :t- 1 a p r 3 � 'x'+), .)1✓)'Y'. t , s3 $":1 41),) 410)1, . i _� Fy{. 0 A'IA 111{1'Y' ' ;. ,.5 )ks•.A• At,;;!': .1 '. 4 4i}! ' 4,/,a3„4‘, ar 3a s i- � 18 i z ts. y �. l � _�- am -�`;,.y�:72�';,.�`7.w�:Y��w±`�r-�. 's`�.t�,,;z�r.,k:.;.. .m='�;:};,'�•r�f.�t �`r, z'��"�.i,�s ..��4�7',��8i ..�'�,;t#.,�"st��, i 2 cir44 5 1. ‘s.47-5- q"):. `' 41. 9 s� 222-30590775 2. a,�� ,60/F,77, zz3 a�3 _ 2 °55 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Page 2 of 3 This three page form is one of a number of identical forms which comprise one petition seeking the annexation of the described territory to the City of Renton, Washington as above stated, and may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions,or signs a petition seeking an election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement,shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the filing of this petition. (Names of petitioners should be in identical form as the same that appear on record in the chain of title to the real estate.) a ... j 1 � as +�li! .� j 'D,�� x' 4 ,f v�, tt' .._ 3/310 S �. /.. ,�� . /1/ 4037 SE l ► 1. 5!n tis - 2. 3. 111111111.1111111111 ',woo 4. 5. 6. • 7. 8. 9. 10. Page 2 of 3 FROM :A TO Z TAX SERVICE FAX NO. :4252715922 Feb. 26 2005 03:08PM P1 This three page form is one of a number of identical forms which comprise one petition seeking the annexation of the described territory to the City of Renton,Washington as above stated, and fir.► may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures. WARNING: £veryperson who signs this petition with any other-than his or her true name,or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions,or signs a petition seeking an election when he or she is nota legal voter,or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign,or who makes herein any false statement,shall be guilty of'a misdemeanor. The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the filing of this petition. (Names afpatitioners should be in identical form as the same that appear on record in the char of title to the real Waft) e Y n n . n r �. } f- � w+-+. 1 d4•2707.—;+;:lit iS 4v fC L1.. • 4k a+ .....-._ �..t.:.J .. - .v...<s...__,.�1' Z.a..... :iu.t •,. ..Ww X32 f3?cCK5ic ' ir7i N©.72-23 ©� /) ' t4f5HfliL Egofkih tMel-11177:16414/0 : Z23v 1,3 12. 13_ Nemo 14. Y . 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Page 3 of 3 i 1 i. p,.24 F.11_ This three page form is one of a number of identical forms which comprise one petition seeking the annexation of the described territory to the City of Renton, Washington as above stated,and may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement,shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the filing of this petition. (Names of-petitioners should be in identical form as the same that appear on record in the char of title to the real estate.) *+'f<�'1� 4� t. r l �„ tit!! 4 r:, w f ! fk,. r.r (.Hf�t ; 4 r r- +� . t 1t7 N f}4(i,r r7, •�, s v(:; , 1t til',';'1` sC d r'T.: �.; �' 'r!' tl7r !.. fell M1 td ,,A3" t r,S;1�' ° .i �E + l�'} 5 Itl_4,,,.;;',;):'4F�{ I j,i �v� °h to I t I S�'A'� .� 1I t i 1 r •- !\ipS - int �1,i I a i+r + , ,,,,':.:,,..,..v,,-, '!!7 ''..I I{ .;,- k IS , 11�� n ,,i -',,Lr, i ` [ 'f l N i°.ri; '.1 .1%,'7124t- 1 r 7 ,��f1� ;I I i.(,�4 �).: r a -r•- :24 �.F ,r ,4 4 S ILy � y I i� 1 ! c t a r:„ f As l,xti.i jt1'a 4W1A 'Skhar r it i}rT l � 9Y,4, JT:g X1 1 11.10','1 .�r:,1 1 I a 1 .+ t I 1...' r t. a ;+ �n'� J '� 1' r t'14101:4';'. 4 � +l vl ` y r; r 1 i r ' AT it gl i 9k 1 j I .* tiF l a r�{, y xI t F,4 � 4n`J �s ,r r k.4x 14 t +l i 4,i ' c ¢ t 4.1 S 1 1 i� I I , A f,l lit t i !'h }J I I li e ria if I ''fir h c r'./ r t t r .-,.....,4,4h.,t d d ! f „ i of l� ,k+>< c s. caro ' 4 air+ j �. r,.�� Y J r it '�.s F °1t- i t, G, X1 .,...�.�:ol.�,.> wta?'M.!J'f•,?�',E4!�a..: ..,n,aap:r'!! 1�,3,F ..r,+...,.......:'�..51)i.'�'.�.i.�.L��J'1��1..T1.rr,,.,a:a�+�Fx�•/+�yE�taL'9. crfC,.�Fx't^��'a:{:��.�'�d...�:u4..a�'�t . `l'o h �c,�eCia A s t -z z..6,4 „/D'' )L t 5 t a 3/3/o6 f ,. /_:___Lhltaz-s.siiief40,9 /741 DIa-605q039 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18, 19. -�i E____________------ ,ftiol Page 3 of 3 A This three page form is one of a number of identical forms which comprise one petition seeking the annexation of the described territory to the City of Renton, Washington as above stated, and may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures. 11.10, WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he or she is not a legal voter,or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement,shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the filing of this petition. (Names ofpetitioners should be in identical form as the same that appear on record in the chain of title to the real estate.) rfo• 3 a te,, ,3H ''114 4 e 11 47 J 0,11-4 i- 14 A1 I . r111 0;' )4 s�t: • • 3 i i,=�' '�'• }j '* " `r x -rte"'.. -2 F E 'rte �5> aafJ. i-da VOA/ 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Page 2 of 3 This three page form is one of a number of identical forms which comprise one petition seeking the annexation of the described territory to the City of Renton, Washington as above stated, and may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures. , id WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement,shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the filing of this petition. (Names of petitioners should be in identical form as the same that appear on record in the chain of title to the real estate.) (p nu 4l1\mal+:.saj�,(� �Fnf»`. ...x§0..:..ow..,s.S..F.zwN . .. ...u:�.xe�e'a-,:.�Te..d.:..F3....[�✓..Al... t i... w....ks.tm'.�-aa we„kk.,a`��.ir2 N'.�,..�. 4-1 \ /k 1. _ � f-'''14%-j24- -7, ✓ 1. 1-305-?06V 2. ' /r 5-41c3cz yo 10- 5e. 1300- . 3 -- s --, 5. 1_zipc i uA, � P6vvvis-61.4 1 133'Avt, //8 700,72ao 6. % oc ) -(M )-3z C gI'17OUI7 7. s. 9. 10. Page 2 of 3 This three page form is one of a number of identical forms which comprise one petition seeking the annexation of the described territory to the City of Renton, Washington as above stated, and may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures. 'roe WARNING: Every person who signs thispetition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he or she is not a legal voter,or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement,shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the filing of this petition. (Names of petitioners should be in identical form as the same that appear on record in the chain of title to the real estate.) , 'a�� • on-4'10 -s 'r:- ' �� I411�'i-,ts" E¢i � 6• 11(1 ,g;- 1-11,fK'r : L„.;k , s '3 f�• � Ut f , , �c? � _ haw�r, 1. 5/4-ps ge-rt-k-ri iol- gacce 2. .� �. � Po 8e c (02:72.--�(�U e .C 111 Reg CVO wt C► t -36 -1/2-(), 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. swipe Page 2 of 3 This three page form is one of a number of identical forms which comprise one petition seeking the annexation of the described territory to the City of Renton, Washington as above stated, and may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions,or signs a petition seeking an election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign,or who makes herein any false statement,shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the filing of this petition. (Names ofpetitioners should be in identical form as the same that appear on record in the chain of title to the real estate.) 1. �� Ell 1336 .�w.F. 'fir e F,c, e/t xl �� t' YCaI a13o5q 113 2.. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Page 2 of 3 This three page form is one of a number of identical forms which comprise one petition seeking the annexation of the described territory to the City of Renton,Washington as above stated, and Nose may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement,shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the filing of this petition. (Names ofpetitioners should be in identical form as the same that appear on record in the chain of title to the real estate.) •yam: +i)" x v o- t i „tz X a '��i -:* ?� + sr,t'ti # t �' `Z•fid'"�{ _ a 4�'?„ f IT �'' 3 spa 4 •� � :'� � '�lOi �f E� _!" " t -~�-3n � � r � � ie� '� � ��t, o 1. A�i3215 s% MOLL- 1 ► LL e� Pu-i f-9p3Q 222—'3059 o 9 e 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. • 8. 9. 10. Page 2 of 3 This three page form is one of a number of identical forms which comprise one petition seeking the annexation of the described territory to the City of Renton, Washington as above stated, and may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions,or signs a petition seeking an election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement,shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the filing of this petition. (Names ofpetitioners should be in identical form as the same that appear on record in the chain of title to the real estate.) )7..- >1;;as a 'd i VA t1.1S .� a1 as 1. /pit ©flu u l W‘a.rrtpr) X 4(07 1. rd5t, t ;1 nti �h a 9. a 212 ?S`-'mc, 1 10LeiC n ►3o3 s: t sfsr Sr 2.. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Page 2 of 3 This three page form is one of a number of identical forms which comprise one petition seeking the annexation of the described territory to the City of Renton,Washington as above stated, and may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign,or who makes herein any false statement,shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the filing of this petition. (Names ofpetitioners should be in identical form as the same that appear on record in the chain of title to the real estate) I i .. l'O' I IY„,oi3 � k � , ` , . , zo n � tt � k ( �{ � --/F-10-- G.. i P2504. /3(.3 S., t:. /971- 1. 27 aitll' iiiior 222305'go7, (Sta. -7 t3V4,t - 5181700210 2. - (-L- k la_A-4,, 9 stA--Fr 3. n '�f�� MALL= vty / --v 3-(9606e.e0 pe--:"A c4 r2-e"/V o iv ? o— 2226°5715 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Nose Page 2 of 3 1 This three page form is one of a number of identical forms which comprise one petition seeking the annexation of the described territory to the City of Renton, Washington as above stated, and may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement,shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the filing of this petition. (Names ofpetitioners should be in identical form as the same that appear on record in the chain of title to the real estate.) � 44''' d ii C}, rt— ., t".---,^ ",...4:11.;---,='•�2 I t r �,..r ' t ,3 i `1-." 7 �1`t'_.r • t `i:',- r 4 f '�,F .1s' 4.3 �'7 '{6d°: 3 34„.#:;731ili `y,1' 37if711 ': 3"ry. . i ,%. • a 7'.1`1 1I 14"?' 13i( � r i(i)1,�"7. L7 .. ^7 f ' ' S .�`.'F«...3.s....,»..�. �3 u wi.-sv._ �..<.»t: ,d` .�.�zg...�tia� uuss.:.......:, .�y+�,z,.—::� ,..z.....,.,.i. ',;1,,,, t—_,X0....,../,.01.1.r..4. .... °Ai 6� / 2-2/ SCIS/STS1. ��. lie d /Ai &7J/ Gv4. 61t5ct 0090 2. Milli 3. Nee 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Page 2 of 3 This three page form is one of a number of identical forms which comprise one petition seeking the annexation of the described territory to the City of Renton, Washington as above stated, and may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions,or signs a petition seeking an election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement,shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the filing of this petition. (Names of petitioners should be in identical form as the same that appear on record in the chain of title to the real estate.) 77,77-----1-7-:;, ,-- — s —1 )1 14' : 13“.(49a .&.. I,.ug.µ .3,.v. ..� ......., - 1. 0 os v.., - SI' firisrin 131c9--2 s6/if q a 2. 0`9/ ,5-` a as 305 4►a 6-J --� 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Page 2 of 3 This three page form is one of a number of identical forms which comprise one petition seeking the annexation of the described territory to the City of Renton, Washington as above stated, and may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name,or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement,shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the filing of this petition. (Names ofpetitioners should be in identical form as the same that appear on record in the chain of title to the real estate.) tf �t; r .}`;.}-Y` -%, h 'ir" a� } +e r +:.�f r R 3 • • � ! I - 5 i,} r '�,' z91 . 3 ' }• wf�4d �r r hi;•ii °r� k • y �..:} AG 41-61 (LIt # i 7 • s _ x; L •e`.,,._ • ,..,.W,> /gat S de AS/ .7- 1. 31/1 rilliATIffiri ev `11 fg° 8 9181 00r zr_ P D‘-t L f 0GJ-!fl 60b7 )5i-5A-- 2. s -ds sG �LLew)c / .26 / _ '� 9isg7-0- • 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Page 2 of 3 This three page form is one of a number of identical forms which comprise one petition seeking the annexation of the described territory to the City of Renton, Washington as above stated, and Nen,,,, may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name,or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement,shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the filing of this petition. (Names of petitioners should be in identical form as the same that appear on record in the chain of title to the real estate.) s.t.V1e '11 ,d),:m. > Ore 8113 � - 1 ��9�.,. a . �� Tl. Nt > 1i#3" ti94��.. �s' � ` . ih� ,L ) c , 'i,e .... a —„.. �, <_.__ ._ ..�..._ _ecu, -,, _� .�. v.., .a Aa.c i.,-3 ,=. _ i. A � (oC.4 % /5`0672 � / & 1. � �� LUQ e2c.it( 1Q;':/ydtil WA c -c gl o @700/90 a c<G ,.. )9. 7/9/)ICS /5-0/3 -- /3.121,916:5:C. 5� . 4 14,..„..., sPE'llTan/ w,9 78d . 4 i`1791-°v(30 its SE 14- f 3. - - 05n , Lv� � 21-3 0 s0i kite. sfy; 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. N.. Page 2 of 3 N This three page form is one of a number of identical forms which comprise one petition seeking the annexation of the described territory to the City of Renton, Washington as above stated, and may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he or she is not a legal voter,or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign,or who makes herein any false statement,shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the filing of this petition. (Names of petitioners should be in identical form as the same that appear on record in the chain of title to the real estate.) 7t7'.377:7777-"" -'y r77-7'7 '.. '� x ---�,.. �. t`r�-i-rm -F - --s ,3 fr, Ail. :tet :}`," '��, r` •1,.n-t-4-aa 10!WI'1 �3 1 , i 4 eti I i-1-11.- q )(.4,'!"..1,4 1, i j(0 E �. � � �✓�� c � ,k, k i 'd f�� isa( ' .4_0,0,0I �� A '..,; 4,....a..1.x.,401!„-. .`J 3_.F . v fi' ,1rw ..,., z. ' &Sa. . . .-,_ a . ,L%:. z21,i,&k,14111.1.193- ,.:; 1. 3/4/ �_ r .l-Aa2q = li1 4.(-7-e&L,)4A.c10:1-, 5I28Od DO 50 2. �l/��`�� `�� 7 5- tZ%000007 �� 3. 3� C 4 13 i.--2-2 sE ;s/ Si g i✓Lvii5boGe To R-1-a 02i5 ,410100 rA ori 4. 5. 6. 7. • 8. 9. 10. Page 2 of 3 \,, 711111%,17: _.... .. 1411,„u* 1154 viz-lit-- . 10-A Not' irc=,�� iii" 44 i `� `� 4,,, ar �� a��W\�.v�; '�`',-,,�v `l'' 'fi d "' I� V!ff lyF.✓^ >iv � ^� ky'�-� "� .4.::-',`,,,,:....,...'"„' „„,,,,,k;.\:',.,,‘;,„‘...-.',',.....,,,, \,;‘,,:,,,,,,' ., ' r° p V+ a } "_t `hy! ,:.Ltd, ' ee'r` "yl'./ .f :"Wil' •" 1✓'Ttit.prs'1 Via v .�'A� 'l. w"�7�`i�' 1��'�1 � yt�� _+r +n G.A� 4' 1' y w ,l yy )fit 1 ,.„v.,,,,, .YW°„m,N,, h rG�,'R`; Q �� „5,r '�t�w..w?��,,,...';0000* y''�✓, " ,r' e G,j'w, �,�l� '�F�� }��r ��t�.,y��1�Y f� �r��a�]��u v tr"r� ,�y+ t�''r ter, � �a�d �I,1 y�,,,�. �� .rf i � ScS4 1 aJ s i y,' V N ) 'y,Xi *' ,:i) .1 ?- ii n W.:,--?1,,,,,',-,. -x \ � ' YK2 Y",� 1 /1'yv/ � , 1 �r✓' �,,f 1�1', � :I :T'k / tar : tilla,V; b'< �1 '��; � f �,��1 ) 7��1 1 1iii' iu, ��a�4 � ,itAdump . > 0 het �/ ryi , l�j; iri t% , '-'44,-,q(:.;• ,,,-.0-,Y;,',-`':,',.::::...;::',: '''' ''-';:"\''- !'2:',.-." • / if% iii" t:,..t* ''''''`,';A.:,4,,,,,1'1';/ ''''('1i,1 1 l'r',I;. \;..\`-:;,4,,:,,,1 itAr- i_i..uV Z k��o I `fit, ' Aye,;,1,, ',1;,,,', G4 7 l tilt ; , 4 " : 1 . /11 , _,.litE,.,,,,,_„,,,,,,,v,v,...0,,,,,lY,J,•r, silk_ I S ,C'� N krv ll 10i tolil t%\14*-N Proposed Maplewood Addition Annexation k o soo l000 �: Figure 3: Existing Structures Map — — Current City Limits Cr py. ti i Economic Development Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning rv'''"I Annexation Area en • 2 Alex Pietsch,Administrator I Structure 1 : 6000 G.Del Rosario • •r0 21 December 2004 v ' v Exhibit "B" MAPLEWOOD ADDITION ANNEXATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION ,S/ That portion of the east half(1/2) of Section 21 and the west half(1/2)of Section 22, all in Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M.,in King County,Washington, lying southwesterly of the City Limits of the City of Renton as annexed under Ordinance No. 3945, southeasterly of the City Limits of the City of Renton as annexed under Ordinance No. 2170,northeasterly of the City Limits of the City of Renton as annexed under Ordinance No. 3723, said City Limits at this location also being the thread of the Cedar River, and northerly and northwesterly of the thread of the Cedar river, from a point on the City Limits of the City of Renton as annexed under Ordinance Nos. 3945 and 4156, said point being the southerly terminus of the common boundary between said Ordinances on the thread of the Cedar River, downstream to an intersection with said City Limits as annexed under Ordinance No. 3723. City Clerk CITY OF RENTON City of Renton MAR 7 2005 1055 South Grady Way Nos" Renton, WA 98055 RECEIVED 1Y CLERK'S OFFICE March 5,2005 This letter is intended to serve as notice that I rescind my rescission of the Maplewood Addition annexation petition. I support annexation. Signahfre 1' ALpIw Printed Name 1323 161 `t1 Renton, WA 98058 Address , 222. 306 /0q2 Tax ID Number City Clerk ';ITY OF RENTOR City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way MAR 7 2005 ,, 801 Renton, WA 98055 RECEIVED ,t TY CLERK'S OFFICE March 5, 2005 This letter is intended to serve as notice that I rescind my rescission of the Maplewood Addition annexation petition. I support annexation. --'''N\\ ;k."--,c-TI -..h5--i-mc,\S„).es_v1 Signature (i 1 I C-30(9. J 13a+'h .)\—)k SC; Printed Name ---�Qh \ �C'�nC��e1;" Renton, WA 98058_ Address °1 1 ` q -700a n-) Tax ID Number City Clerk City of Renton CITY OF RENTON 1055 South Grady WayMAR 7 2005 Nlor Renton, WA 98055 RECEIVED ._;iTY CLERK'S OFFICE March 5, 2005 This letter is intended to serve as notice that I rescind my rescission of the Maplewood Addition annexation petition. I support annexation. 9=r11----c-Ar-Q Signature M r �\-e �C Printed Name j Scs (e, I fr-haitLY Renton, WA 98058 Nalw Address (c)i7DolCr) Tax ID Number V i OF RENTON City Clerk City of Renton MAR 7 2005 ,i000 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RECEIVED _An/CLERK'S OFFICE March 5, 2005 This letter is intended to serve as notice that I rescind my rescission of the Maplewood Addition annexation petition. I support annexation. 4.6-Nra/C__Q 3/67g. 5 � bL) Signature Olne.rvlu� Pnnted Name 15012) —— I V) Renton,WA 98058 Address 512S 6e. Tax ID Number City Clerk CITY OF RENTON City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way MAR 7 2005 Renton, WA 98055 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE March 5, 2005 This letter is intended to serve as notice that I rescind my rescission of the Maplewood Addition annexation petition. I support annexation. 4 (PLCf Signatu,e'; ike i ( 1 U Printed Name 1 ' 0V 5e I LICI Now Address WA 98058 Address 22- 2 36 c 7 ' o6 Tax ID Number City of Renton CITv OF RENTON Attn: Bonnie Walton City Clerk 1460.- �� 1055 So.Grady Way MAR 8 5 Renton, Wa. 98055 RECEIVED _ATY CLERk'S OFFICE Ms. Walton, A petition was presented to me recently for the annexation of Maplewood Addition to the city of Renton. I do not feel I was provided with adequate information to make an informed decision at this time. I wish to have my signature rescinded from this petition. Thank You, � p Name Jitt t"1,gy1�'b Address (?Q? seNome Telephone number q 26 .Z / -232 I •Signature 3/0C (1,}Aal 91-h,l-frvx 1" il --IfLAArJ4s " '- i °4"± 6we-- 11,,A wiltit afp --to vtik -aWe'r ChM 1A-13) r f Not +1&4114,1-111At Ige)t/Vat' 1)(4‘AllAr ryj • - • atii147C/M1L Nor CITY OF RENTON MAR 4 2005 RECEIVED �4TY CLERK'S OFFICE • q0--b-t-Al ()()--P/L-24-‘24 -' 7 City of Renton CITY OF RENTON Attn: Bonnie Walton MAR 4 City Clerk �� 1055 So. Grady Way RECEIVED Renton, Wa. 98055 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Ms. Walton, A petition was presented to me recently for the annexation of Maplewood Addition to the city of Renton. I do not feel I was provided with adequate information to make an informed decision at this time. I wish to have my signature rescinded from this petition. Thank You, Name 1> >oz > C Address \sD 7- 13 St SSE Telephone number 3 ID3s- 31 deb Signature ::11.Y OF RENTON City of Renton Attn: Bonnie Walton MAR 4 L(IU City Clerk RECEIVED 1055 So. Grady Way .;ITY CLERK'S OFFICE Renton WA 98055 Ms. Walton A petition was presented to me recently for the annexation of Maplewood Addition to the city of Renton. I do not feel I was provided with adequate information to make an informed decision at this time. I wish to have my signature rescinded from this petition. Thank you, Name 11Gc. `dtL1 ) Address /3/1I S-- " /`1-&APLe VALLL Y Telephone number - 5 j ) c -c1b ( C. // o�O6 8'1 .0.76). .:. Signature �t City of Renton ur'Fv OF RENTON Attn: Bonnie Walton City Clerk MAR A 1055 So. Grady Way RECEIVED Renton WA 98055 CITY CLERKS OFFICE Ms. Walton A petition was presented to me recently for the annexation of Maplewood Addition to the city of Renton. I do not feel I was provided with adequate information to make an informed decision at this time. I wish to have my signature rescinded from this petition. Thank you, Name 1/0-44-/ t ' --- Address A92_ /3 0 ��-�- t¢C Telephone number 4ca — e2 S" Iel 0 Signature Ai , �, ., __ / I City of Renton - v OF RENTOR Attn: Bonnie Walton City Clerk MAR 4 QO5 1055 So. Grady Way RECEIVED Renton WA 98055 ;Iry CLERICS OFFICE Ms. Walton A petition was presented to me recently for the annexation of Maplewood Addition to the city of Renton. I do not feel I was provided with adequate information to make an informed decision at this time. I wish to have my signature rescinded from this petition. Thank you, Name drP knewiu.S Address 15 0 / I.3 O � A v e �t b R , X01, ciF.06-0" Telephone number 9 6 ' Signature N-0-Ya-,C., ) , -7,09v 5 City of Renton Attn: Bonnie Walton #�� RENTON City Clerk BAR 4 2005 1055 So. Grady Way Renton WA 98055 RECEIVED ;I`F-Y CLERK'S OFFICE Ms. Walton A petition was presented to me recently for the annexation of Maplewood Addition to the city of Renton. I do not feel I was provided with adequate information to make an informed decision at this time. I wish to have my signature rescinded from this petition. Thank you, Name C c mte_A Sou—Abe Address \ ` t2DO U S Telephone number Lag, Signature u -7-A574 c City of Renton Tly OF RENTON Nifty' Attn: Bonnie Walton 41,5 City Clerk 1055 So. Grady Way RECEIVED Renton WA 98055 ;s CLERK'S OFFICE Ms. Walton A petition was presented to me recently for the annexation of Maplewood Addition to the city of Renton. I do not feel I was provided with adequate information to make an informed decision at this time. I wish to have my signature rescinded from this petition. Thank you, Name 50; Address \ (50(- r"Jo �� • Telephone number LJ,95" - \?j O c , / — Signature y ;rd City of Renton ;, oP RENToN Attn: Bonnie Walton City Clerk MAR 4 ;;0 . °j 1055 So. Grady Way RECEIVED Renton WA 98055 ;Fri CLERK'S OFFICE Ms. Walton A petition was presented to me recently for the annexation of Maplewood Addition to the city of Renton. I do not feel I was provided with adequate information to make an informed decision at this time. I wish to have my signature rescinded from this petition. Thank you, Name . i,L,E /14,:iL fofi.! Address 45./ 7'. void EN A/'I t,val. GI,r.0-5- Telephone 'B-STelephone number ''.25—� Signature ae ?`r a- -:-t-) Ø,V?c r.r� Q_O7r®O p .",'`ITY OF RENTON MAR 8 2005 PETITION TO ANNEX TO THE CITY OF RENTON RECEIVED UNDER RCW 35A.14.120 IY CLERK'S OFFICE `torr (60%Petition—Maplewood Addition Annexation) TO: THE CITY COUNCIL Of SUBMTITED BY: o A I ; tkt A THE CITY OF RENTON ADDRESS: 1 - PIM 1055 South Grady Way REM L � Renton, WA 98055 PHONE: Ll?S— 71 7—/02-`h The undersigned are owners of not less than sixty percent(60%)in value according to the assessed valuation for general taxation, of real property located contiguous to the City of Renton. We hereby petition that such property be annexed to the City of Renton under the provisions of RCW 35A.14.120 et seq. The territory proposed to be annexed is within King County, Washington, and is contiguous to the City of Renton. A map (Exhibit A)and legal description(Exhibit B)are included as part of this petition. In response to a duly filed and considered "Notice of Intention"to commence annexation proceedings,the City Council of the City of Renton met with the initiating parties under RCW 35A.14.120 on January 24, 2005. The City Council then determined that the City would accept the proposed annexation. Further,pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120,the undersigned petitioners agree to: Aloe (1) Accept the City's simultaneous adoption of zoning consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan land use designation upon annexation; and (4) Assume their proportional share of the City's existing outstanding indebtedness. all as noted in the minutes of the Council meeting and contained in the electronic recording of such meeting. WHEREFORE, the undersigned property owners petition the City Council and ask: (a) That the City Council fix a date for a public hearing about such proposed annexation, cause a notice to be published and posted, specifying the time and place of such hearing, and inviting all persons who are interested to appear at the hearing and state their approval or disapproval of such annexation or to ask questions; and (b) That following such hearing, and consistent with any approval by the Boundary Review Board,the City Council by ordinance annex the above described territory to become part of the City of Renton, Washington, subject to its laws and ordinances then and thereafter in Nome force, and to receive City public services. Page 1 of 2 03/07/2005 09:39 JOHN L. SCOTT RENTON -> 19287823299PP04177 NO.055 t)003 This three page form is one of a number of identical forms which comprise one petition seeking the annexation of the described territory to the City of Renton, Washington as above stated,and may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name,or who knowingly signs more than one of thesepetiiions,or signs a petition seeking an election when he or she is not a legal voter,or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign,or who makes herein any false statement,shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the filing of this petition, (Names of pedtielterS should be len identical form as the same that appear on record in the chain oftitle to the real rata) •�k• `Y1�1 Yz1�� V ry_}3Mr r y7.i.m t�1r�R.ay.Ft#t�aijrt yw�r:4f.4,"w µ,a + MeI naf.tlr� j* , .. !rq�y .yry I, �a-'i•,t�rh i tt yy t� ,' I � u;:r1 ..41;,.MU “ i. � r r• *- :13, " +% cy;41.$- � »,cn;M f, i t+! -sem e P y 1#i .ee c.f, $ 1. ��' 222.7of 7/,/7 ref 1:L A n f V7cn "VA 5)004 2. 3-7 0� �C.� zzz 3 or 7/si7 • 3. • .44,60 4. 5. 6. _ 7 8. 9. 10, Page 2 of 3 02-26-2003 22:30 PACE3 This three page form is one of a number of identical forms which comprise one petition seeking the annexation of the described territory to the City of Renton, Washington as above stated, and *, may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement,shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the filing of this petition. (Names ofpetitioners should be in identical form as the same that appear on record in the chain of title to the real estate) 7 n• ii " r •:. =23 � • 7 , •+-r � 3+€t f�` D .• 3 1 • '9 r � � v ups �?a �� { ` ,....r s v i�- N-106 1. l �j G t6t`n' . ,l 4.6q13I/ Rentpn u� )2 2_3(55-7/3–Z- 2. 3. X33.►• 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Page 2 of 3 a This three page form is one of a number of identical forms which comprise one petition seeking the annexation of the described territory to the City of Renton, Washington as above stated,and may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement,shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the filing of this petition. (Names of petitioners should be in identical form as the same that appear on record in the chain of title to the real estate) fLr ,:::::„;.-2.-7;-:,:::;,,,::--1.7.--: ' 7 G J -...',..;:ii ' ' 9 tJ i'-;,7:17,-,:p F ', , ', Y „,..„,;.-.4,..A �3 ' SC}' i'-'' '-' *-* ' K '''' f -'” ,'•f7 \' `, F s °' %, : d �itil''11i1;• :1:tti ;,. t E' a• Yi ',ill1! 3 1+J a 3j9 ): t IF j34h i�6' - 4 . 1. 3-7—D.� e'en fiv,, wit a'), 3o 5 ctotio3 6u s . 4 ' //04 r_< an es j'; 0 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. NS Page 2 of 3 eNigNricip."41111.11" �ty t V "41111V111,--4 _114-7-11 e u,filr* ,,,c'S,:-,4';'-fA,--,,,, wit e se i I 1 I V*0 10- oe..,,,,zst•Nt.4,:ofi,t,-::t4,,,,,,.,,,,,, i aq �� ^ k 4 #17-\5,---,1;cA„ ,,-,-.,:-: -:,,-, , 1,, L , r-! 7�`/�'v',,„'.tti? ciiii) as..." tote 4. ,,r,,,.,., :,,,,,. .,,,,,,,,,,,,,,tu,.c.:,),.,„7,,... „ , we,.... p......-- _.‘0,,,..,,,,,s,,,,,,,,,,,,,..,,4,, ��,rt�t�`p`1qlt � � � �w",v�� 1�' L �� >��ti. f��lCp �x,�f.a q��t t ,-i.f'La.;/i �1 /J i ;;`"fi 2 I/ , ,✓ i, "��I�aro`W'�1� '�' v� ,�;, �f° " � �11�! 161� ' y J � ✓�/ /i -""„,,,� ��/Y�� q v- n ,l'�1,r` d'� -',:;:'1 f: ✓tom ( <r / 0 2° '�., f/ ',,,':,,,'-',\'. s.,,,,IlW �ems✓ �'„i'')';',,',---,,;;,.:,‘,,,x,/,„4;\,,,,:,,,,:,.0.. -' - �j F -�. �+4�''�`d( Ili•.‘,--,.,1' y'y>1 �� w" l, ,/,/_.,,,,I, Nii 11�la,,, r} ,,:„:1/4J,,,,,,,,z,r,i ,/,,,,,%,,,,,,/,,,,',„`,-,;,,,..-,-,0171, ,,,"-`::,,,':',,,',„//,,,;,\.:'', ,,'„:7,' I 6.0 ...,...L., v ,. y , r✓'�` ,�'..., t lv ✓ t f �, - r �'�C�u`, Imo `, R .,,, ri/p. • ' !AM &:. . ifi rill is �� ti 1 , �� war "'�r}.�� ,l ✓I�, rhi ';',',-.(,,„p • 00•1417)� a � loollio J o + ISili 1 i vaajall to ti,„ ii---z:„, N,4*A Proposed Maplewood Addition Annexation r., tral ti-i �-1 o soo Figure 3: Existing Structures Map — 1000 �: Current City Limits .„,..r,.... ,,,,, O� Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning Annexation Area a. + + Alex Piusch,Administrator 1 6000 e."- C.Del Aosado StfUCtUfB 0 21 Decnber2004 ., V Exhibit "B" MAPLEWOOD ADDITION ANNEXATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION That portion of the east half(1/2) of Section 21 and the west half(1/2) of Section 22, all in Township 23 North, Range 5 East,W.M., in King County,Washington, lying southwesterly of the City Limits of the City of Renton as annexed under Ordinance No. 3945, southeasterly of the City Limits of the City of Renton as annexed under Ordinance No. 2170, northeasterly of the City Limits of the City of Renton as annexed under Ordinance No. 3723, said City Limits at this location also being the thread of the Cedar River, and northerly and northwesterly of the thread of the Cedar river, from a point on the City Limits of the City of Renton as annexed under Ordinance Nos. 3945 and 4156, said point being the southerly terminus of the common boundary between said Ordinances on the thread of the Cedar River, downstream to an intersection with said City Limits as annexed under Ordinance No. 3723. • CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: Submitting Data: For Agenda of: 3/21/2005 Dept/Div/Board.. Hearing Examiner Staff Contact Fred J. Kaufman, ext. 6515 Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Ordinance File No. LUA-02-040, EIS, PP, SA-H, SM Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation Study Sessions Legal Description and Vicinity Map Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Legal Dept Council Concur Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... N/A Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated lkope Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation on the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat was published on February 22, 2005. The appeal period ended on March 8, 2005. The Examiner recommends approval of the proposed preliminary plat subject to the conditions outlined on pages 15 and 16 of the Examiner's Report and Recommendation. Conditions placed on this project are to be met at later stages of the platting process. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat with conditions as outlined in the Examiner's Report and Recommendation. Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh February 22, 2005 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER Now CITY OF RENTON Minutes APPLICANT/CONTACT: Century Pacific LP Steven Wood/Campbell Mathewson 1501 Fourth Ave., Ste 2140 Seattle, WA 98101 OWNER: Alex Cugini Barbee Mill Company PO Box 359 Renton, WA 98057 CONTACT: Otak Inc Matt Hough 10230 NE Points Dr., Ste. 400 Kirkland, WA 98033 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA 02-040, EIS, PP. SA-H, SM LOCATION: 4201 Lake Washington Boulevard North (Between North 40th and 441h Streets) Nome SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Approval for a 115-lot subdivision of a 23-acre site intended for the development of townhouse units. A shoreline Substantial Development Permit is also required. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: Approve DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on January 18, 2005. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The.following minutes are a summary of the January 25, 2005 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, January 25, 2005, at 9:57 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Barbee mill Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-02-040, EIS, PP, SA-H, SM February 22. 2005 Page 2 Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No. 2: Overall Preliminary Plat Plan application, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No. 3: Preliminary Plat Plan,North Exhibit No. 4: Preliminary Plat Plan, South Exhibit No. 5: Preliminary Landscape Plan,North Exhibit No. 6: Preliminary Landscape Plan, South Exhibit No. 7: May Creek Buffer Restoration Sect. B Exhibit No. 8: Lake Shoreline Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit No. 9: Railroad Crossing Plan and Profile, Exhibit No. 10: Railroad Crossing Plan and Profile, North South Exhibit No. 11: Detailed Grading Plan and Grading Exhibit No. 12: Detailed Grading Plan and Grading Elevations, North Elevations, South Exhibit No. 13: Existing Site and Topography Map Exhibit No. 14: Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit No. 15: Zoning Map Exhibit No. 16: Summary Table of Mitigation Measures The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Susan Fiala, Senior Planner, Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The subject site is located along the `told Lake Washington shoreline. There is an existing single-family development to the southeast designated R-8 and some small multi-family developments designated R-10. The property is situated within the Center Office Residential (COR-2) zoning designation, which provides for a mix of intensive commercial, office and residential activity. Stand-alone residential development is also permitted in the zone provided the required density of a minimum 5 dwelling units per net acre is satisfied. The existing site has limited operations of a lumber mill with several structures that will be removed with the exception of a boathouse located on proposed new Lot 95. The historical background was discussed by Ms. Fiala. Site-Plan Review: The site is located within 200 feet of the Lake Washington and May Creek shorelines and is subject to the City's shoreline Master Program. The applicant is requesting to subdivide this site into 115 lots for the development of townhouse units. May Creek bisects the southern portion of the site from the east, under Lake Washington Boulevard North and into Lake Washington. The project is proposed to be developed in two phases. Phase 1 would include Lots 96-115 located to the south and east of May Creek and Phase 2 would include Lots 1 -94 to the north and west of May Creek. Lot 95 currently contains a boathouse and dock which would remain on the lot and within the plat. Two entry access points are proposed along Lake Washington Boulevard North, one to the north, Street F, that would be an at grade railroad crossing and a second one approximately 950-feet to the south along Lake Washington Boulevard North, Street D, also an at grade crossing. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Significance. An Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) was prepared. No appeals of the adequacy of the Draft or Final EIS were filed. A mitigation ., Barbee mill Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-02-040, EIS, PP, SA-H, SM February 22, 2005 Page 3 Nitime document was issued on August 16, 2004 and an appeal of the Mitigation document was filed by the .applicant and later withdrawn by the applicant. This project is to be reviewed as a Level II Site Plan, it is a conceptual site plan. The applicant is not required to provide any floor plans or elevations. At the request of the Examiner, Ms. Fiala explained the differences between a Level II Site Plan and a Level I Site Plan and what will happen at the public hearings, or if it is an administrative decision for the benefit of any property owners that were present at this hearing. The COR zone allows a building height of 10 stories and/or 125 feet, however the applicant is proposing that the buildings could be up to 50 feet in height within the shoreline jurisdiction and potentially up to 75 feet outside of the shoreline requirements. Building height would be verified at the time of individual building permit review. The COR zone does not have specific requirement for on-site landscaping. Landscaping is reviewed through the site plan review process. The applicant is proposing to install street trees along all residential public streets within the site, the open space/water quality tracts would be landscaped as well. Several of the plant materials proposed include Oregon Ash, tulip tree, Hinoki Cypress and Snowberry. The approximate total area of landscape would be over 5 acres of the site. All landscaping is required to be fully irrigated. The Examiner inquired as to the extensive grading and excavation throughout the site. Preliminary earthwork quantities are estimated at approximately 32,000 cubic yards of excavated material and 38,000 cubic yards of fill material and how many traffic trips all that might generate? Ms. Fiala stated that she would have to calculate the number of trips. The May Creek and Lake Washington buffers are proposed to include 15-feet of managed landscape with 35- feet of native vegetation. The applicant is required to construct public sidewalks along both sides of all public roads. Access to the shoreline would be provided via new trial/walkway through Tract E to the DNR land. A six-foot wide soft surface pedestrian walkway would be provided along the south side of May Creek and include an interpretative display at the southwest end of the trail. All public streets would have sidewalks on both sides except for Street C, modification requested that a sidewalk be provided on only one side of the street. Potential impacts from the development of the site to May Creek and Lake Washington will be mitigated by existing code provisions, as well as the mitigation measures placed on the project. Fire, Traffic and Park Mitigation Fees are proposed for the plat. Adequate sanitary sewer, water service and other utilities would be extended as necessary for the development of the site. Preliminary Plat Review: The subject site is designated Center Office Residential —2 (COR-2), which provides for large scale office, retail and/or multi family projects developed through a master plan and site plan process incorporating significant site amenities and gateway features. The proposed plat is in compliance with all the appropriate Comprehensive Plan policies. The proposed plat complies with the density requirements for the COR-2 zoning designation with a net density of 6.8 dwelling units per acre. Barbee mill Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-02-040. EIS. PP. SA-H, SM February 22, 2005 Page 4 • The proposed lot sizes are appropriate for the attached units proposed for this plat. The applicant has shown setbacks on the plat plan to indicate potential building envelopes that do meet the COR zone requirements. The COR zone does not require any front, rear or side yard setbacks. However, the applicant is proposing the following setbacks: interior side years of 5 feet; front yards of 10 feet and rear yards of 10 feet. The proposal's compliance with building standards would be verified prior to the issuance of individual building permits. All proposed lots comply with the arrangement and access requirements of the Subdivision Regulations with the requested modifications. Due to the length of the private access to Lots 43 through 48, a Fire access turnaround is required. All proposed radii at intersections of public rights-of-way would exceed the minimum radius required and would meet code. Access to the project would be provided via an existing 60-foot wide access easement from the Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane intersection through the abutting property on the north side of the site. The roadway would be dedicated as a public right-of-way. Staff recommends the establishment of a homeowner's association or maintenance agreement for all common improvements. The project is along two shorelines, Lake Washington and May Creek. It is subject to the City's Shoreline Master Program. Current impervious areas would be restored to native vegetation within the buffer area. All mature trees located within the May Creek buffer are proposed to be retained. Within the 50-foot buffer from Lake Washington,the first 35 feet would be planted with native vegetation,the remaining 15 feet would be managed landscape. lute The Examiner inquired about the 100-year floodplain and which part of the property was subject to that designation. Ms. Fiala stated that there is a portion in that designation,there has been mitigation measures placed on the subject site stating that all structures must be built one foot above the required floodplain level. The applicant has provided a shoreline landscaping plan (Exhibit 8) which proposes one pedestrian walkway trail per lot to the shoreline. There are numerous lots along the shoreline(Lots 23-48) staff recommends that there would be only one trail walkway to the shoreline per two units. This would eliminate additional intrusions into this required shoreline buffer. Trails will be provided throughout the site, along May Creek is proposed to be a soft-surface trail. The site is located within the Renton School District and they are able to handle the additional students. Staff recommends approval of the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat subject to eight conditions. The Examiner questioned if the boathouse on Lot 95 would be a legal conforming use when the property is platted. Mr. Fiala stated that she did not have an answer but she would do some research and let the Examiner know. Alex Cugini, 611 Renton Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055 stated that he is the president of Barbee Mill Company which is owned by the Cugini family. They have been working on this project for almost three years, prior to that they worked with the Paul Allen group for four years. All of their experts were present and would be able to answer most of the questions. Barbee mill Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-02-040, EIS, PP, SA-H, SM February 22, 2005 Page 5 Torn Goeltz, Davis Wright Tremaine, 1501 4th Avenue, Suite 2600, Seattle, WA 98101 stated that they are present today to request approval of the Preliminary Plat and the Site Level Ii and would support staff with the exception of a couple of issues. There was an appeal of the mitigation document which was withdrawn last Friday. The clarifications that were needed have been obtained and a major concession on their behalf to use 50 foot buffers on Lake Washington. A letter was submitted by them yesterday and contains some exhibits labeled A-K. Eight conditions were proposed by staff, they are happy with four, two they would like clarifications and 2 conditions they would like removed. In discussing the mitigation document, they are referring to the revised document dated January 10, 2005 and approved by the ERC on January 25. Item 2 has been clarified, Street F has been changed to Street A which will be dedicated, there is an easement that allows the Barbee Mill Company to absolutely dedicate that to the City. The Quendall Company has submitted a letter that states that the property is going to be dedicated to the City and they are in agreement. Staff's condition #7 requiring additional open space due to the lack of a full 50-feet on some of the lots. From their perspective, they started out at 25-feet and compromised and conceded to 50-feet where they could, for those lots that don't have a full 50,they all have a full 35 with native vegetation and that there may be some with less than 50, it is well in excess of the legal requirement of 25 feet. There are 8 lots total that are affected by this condition. They would like this condition removed. **rr They are also requesting that Condition #8 be removed. Each lot, that will be independently owned, should have a path to the water without having to share. It seems that it would be a problem in the making to require joint paths. It does not appear to be a SEPA condition and he was not aware of any code provision that would allow this type of limitation on an individually owned lot. Condition #6 regarding the private access tracts, the staff report requires cul-de-sacs, turnarounds, or an additional access road. All of those are fine, but there may be other engineering solutions. He would like to add the words "or other satisfactory access alignment" to the menu of choices for the final plat. There is a summary of the additional criteria for site plan approval, staff covered in its report well the section for 200E and he added 200F which are some additional criteria showing that they have been met as well. As to the docks, they are still at a conceptual level, they have not decided on docks. There is a condition D-17 that expressly deals with docks. Matt Hough, Otak, Inc., 10230 NE Points Drive, Ste. 400, Kirkland, WA 98033 stated that in regards to the flooding question, there was extensive analysis done for May Creek, one that included modeling. Condition B4 recognizes that the 100-year floodplain must be contained within the 50-foot buffers around May Creek. The means of doing that would be developed, reviewed and approved during engineering design. It can be done either with the fills that would occur on the lots or there is a concept for flood terracing with modification of May Creek which would allow additional conveyance within that corridor that would contain the 100-year floodplain within that area. The delta of May Creek has historically been dredged, he did not know if that was going to continue. The modeling did assume that the dredging ceased, it is a conservative analysis. The second question was on truck trips based on the earthwork volumes, most of the excavation is coming from removal of existing stockpiles or excavation for the storm water ponds. if that material is suitable for on site fill, Barbee mill Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-02-040, EIS, PP, SA-H, SM February 22, 2005 Page 6 that would be used. It could be anywhere from 300 to 1,900 trips, it would be expected that they would roundtrip to minimize the number of trucks on the road. Lynn Manolopoulos, Davis Wright Tremaine, 777 108'h Avenue NE, Ste. 2300, Bellevue, WA 98004 stated that they do have all necessary permits to complete remediation, however, it would be most appropriate to do that work in conjunction with the development. They will evaluate if it would be appropriate to do some portion of the clean up within the next year. The Shoreline Permit would be in effect for five years as long as the work begins within the next year. It would be completed prior to any structures being built. There is no indication that any of the contamination on the Quendall Terminal site has impacted the Barbee Mill site in any way. The Quendall Terminal property is under a formal agreement with the agency and all work done with the oversight of the Department of Ecology. Rich Wagner, 2411 Garden Court North (Kennydale neighborhood) Renton, WA 98056 stated that he supports the application, he is very familiar with the Level I and Level II processes and the idea of pinning down the site parameters of the site development long before one is asked to develop architectural character. The two often do not relate and not a lot of architectural value is presented at the early stages. The current site plan has a unique feature that has not shown up for the last thirty years, and that is the access point shown off of Lake Washington Blvd, south of the bridge over May Creek. It helps connect this residential project to the City of Renton and Kennydale as well. Lastly, it is noted in the findings of staff that the coverage is based on a 65% or 75% of the attached garages. That is an old carryover from the COR zoning that will come to play in the development of the interior lots of a tri- or four-plex. Nrid Larry Reymann, 1313 N 38th Street, Renton, WA 98056 stated that lie is a volunteer naturalist on the Cedar River and involved with the Park Ambassador Program with a focus on May Creek. He was concerned about the access to the shoreline of Lake Washington between Lot 23 and the neighboring property to the north, if that north property should be developed into a park or something. He suggested that a 50-foot walkway would preserve the access to the shoreline. Exhibit 7 shows a cutaway for May Creek, it is very important for salmon to have shade over the water in order to prevent the water from heating up in the summer. It appears that there is approximately 70-feet of open space with no provision for shade for the water. Larger trees in that 70-foot area would be a good thing to protect the salmon and other fish that spawn in the creek. Dredging at the mouth of the creek is essential to prevent flooding of the area. The Homeowners Association should be governed as to how the habitat in May Creek is preserved. He would be willing to work with the owners in a proactive way to protect the habitat and wildlife. Mark Hancock, PO Box 88811, Seattle, WA 98138 stated that he lives in the lower Kennydale neighborhood just south of the project and he has no problem with the project. They do have a problem with traffic cutting off 405 and passing through their neighborhood and up to the 44'h Street interchange. It was requested that to the extent that the haul routes of the gravel trucks, if they could be required to go on to NE 44t1' Street and use that interchange that would be most helpful. Fritz Timm, Sr. Engineer, City of Newcastle, 13020 Newcastle Way,Newcastle, WA 98059 stated that the EIS process contained a couple of opportunities for the City of Newcastle to make comments on the project. This .41.01 particular project does not have any serious qualms in respect to the City of Newcastle. however, there were Barbee mill Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-02-040, EIS, PP, SA-I-I, SM February 22, 2005 Page 7 "" comments that were in respect to light, glare,transportation, and dust. The mitigation measures did not seem to cover these issues to their satisfaction. Comments have been submitted in respect to the am/pm peak hour traffic issues, there will be an increase at specific intersections from this particular project. if there is anything that the City of Renton staff can do to assist with their efforts to improve those conditions it would be appreciated. He stated they did submit a letter to Susan Fiala in which various concerns were documented by the City of Newcastle's traffic engineer, Mike Nicholson, Community Development Director and himself. Kayren Kittrick, Development Services covered some of the questions that were brought up during the hearing. Starting with haul routes, she noted that they would be monitored closely. They are very aware of the neighborhoods having trucks getting through on streets that are not large enough. The worker taking those exits they have no control over, but the gravel trucks are controlled internally. The 1-405, 401" Street. 44`I' Street is a regional concern they do welcome Newcastle's input into what might be needed. 1-405 has a significant amount of money that they will bring to the table. The light/glare issue is very interesting, the level of lighting is mandated by City Code. Hoods on the lights may be a possibility, but the basic lighting levels must be accommodated. There is a new residential light standard that may possibly be used within this area. Dust is a normal routine, the site will be watered down and erosion control is required and that includes both mud and dust. The turnaround between Lots 42 and 48 and between Lots 95 and 98 were discussed. Street A and Street C both were in for modifications for narrower widths,which there was no objection to due to their proximities to May Creek, the Lake and the railroad. The Fire Department was very adamant that they wanted cul-de-sacs at the end of both Street C and Street A because they exceed 500-feet in length. On Street C, there is an existing roadway that comes from the south, up and into Street C. One of her conditions was that they needed to create a road cut and pave that transition point at that location. The Examiner commented that this would not be a general access, it would be a gated or emergency access only. Ms. Kittrick continued that it was a question at this point. She did not know what the actual road serves, who has rights to it, if it's public or private. It is very obvious that it has been there for a lot of years. That opened it up, if it is a public road or a public emergency access, it could be paved per City Code to 500 feet long, 20 feet wide and could be a second access and then a cul-de-sac would no longer be required. Mr. Hough stated that they could put larger trees in the 35-foot buffer to protect the salmon and wildlife. Some of the existing trees will remain. The Department of Fisheries will be involved because of the creek and it is presumed that they will have some criteria for trees and shading and other design elements. Mr. Reymann asked again about the homeowner's association or what entity would be responsible for the shorelines and for the environment specifically along May Creek and Lake Washington and maintaining as much as possible the natural habitat for wildlife. Mr. Goeltz stated that regarding the homeowner's association, the City has enforcement authority for the association. If the City thinks there is not adequate maintenance or care or the conditions are not being maintained then that is an enforcement right on the part of the City. Ms. Kittrick stated that the Department of Fisheries and DOE are on top of these sorts of issues. There also are plenty of volunteers that are out there and more than happy to call City Hall if there's a plumage out of place or something is not being properly cared for. ' The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 10:51 a.m. Barbee mill Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-02-040, EIS, PP, SA-H, SM February 22, 2005 Page 8 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: I. The applicant, Century Pacific LP, Steven Wood, filed a request for a Level 2 Site Plan and 1 15-lot Preliminary Plat for the Barbee Mill property along Lake Washington Boulevard. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit#l. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official, determined that an EIS was required for the proposal and one was prepared. 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located 4201 Lake Washington Boulevard. The subject site is the location of the former Barbee Mill site located along the shoreline of Lake Washington and west of the boulevard. The subject site straddles May Creek as it approaches and enters Lake Washington. The site is located somewhat southwest of the NE 44th Street Exit from 1-405 (Exit 7) and north of NE 40th Street. 6. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of center office or residential uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 7. The subject site is currently zoned COR(Center Office Residential). The COR districts were created for certain large or uniquely located properties including the subject site. 8. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1804 enacted in December 1959. 9. The subject site is approximately 22.9 acres of 997,960 square feet. The parcel is irregularly shaped with its eastern margin defined by a slight curve in the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad tracks and its western margin defined by the shoreline of Lake Washington. 10. The majority of the subject site is relatively level with grades ranging between 0.5%to 4.0%to the west and north of May Creek, 1.0%to 7.0%on the south portion of the creek and towards Lake Washington. There are some grades up to 35%to 40% along May Creek. 11. The subject site contains a variety of sensitive areas in addition to the slopes noted above along May Creek. May Creek runs through approximately 800 linear feet of the site with banks on both sides. A fifty-foot buffer would be provided along each side of the creek from the ordinary high water mark. Any mature trees within the buffer area would be retained. The site sits along the eastern shore of Lake Washington and has approximately 1,900 lineal feet of shoreline. A fifty-foot buffer would be provided along the lake. The applicant proposes that 35 feet be native vegetation and the remaining 15 feet would be manicured vegettion adjacent to the future dwellings. Category III wetlands are located in two areas on the subject site. One is located adjacent to the southeasterly property line near the end of Street Barbee mill Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-02-040, EIS. PP, SA-H, SM February 22, 2005 Page 9 %sr C (northerly wetland) and the other is located at the southern edge of the site near the south end of Street C (southerly wetland). Impermeable surfaces from the former operations would be removed. 12. The applicant proposes dividing the acreage into 115 lots. The lots would be arranged generally along the perimeter of the site and in an interior block in an almost triangular arrangement. A tier of lots would be located along the north boundary of the site and another would be located along the Lake Washington shoreline.There would be a tier of lots located along both sides of May Creek. In addition, in the north central area of the site would be a triangular block with lots along its north and south edges. 13. The main access to the subject site would be from the northeast corner of the site via a 60-foot wide roadway from Lake Washington Boulevard and across the railroad tracks. Currently, that segment of roadway is a private easement. An agreement with the underlying holder would allow it to be used by the applicant and allow it to be dedicated to the City if the project is approved. Where the roadway enters the site a public right-of-way, 42 feet wide would provide access to the majority of the subject site. Street A would run east to west and then turn south and end with a hammerhead turnaround. It would then continue as a narrow private roadway. Street B would run at somewhat of a diagonal intersecting Street A's east to west leg and then its north to south leg. Street D would provide a second point of access out to Lake Washington Boulevard. It would form a T-intersection with Street B. Street D would have a bridge across May Creek. Branching off Street D to the south would be Street C. Street C would be 39 feet wide and run along the south side of May Creek. Street C would end in another hammerhead turnaround. 14. The Fire Department has indicated that due to the deadend roadway length of both Streets A and C, that hammerhead turnarounds are insufficient and that both roads would require a full cul-de-sac New termination. Staff did note that there is another roadway at the end of proposed Street C but that staff does not know its ownership or if it is a public or private roadway and whether it could be used for access to this site and across the railroad tracks. 15. The 115 lots would contain a combination oftownhome structures in 2-unit, 3-unit and 4-unit buildings. The attached units would be located on their individual lots with common walls between units. Side yards would be provided between structures. A Level II Site Plan does not require very specific details such as structural design or facade detail. Building heights are also not covered in this level of analysis although the applicant has proposed buildings up to 50 feet along the Lakeshore and up to 75 feet outside of the shoreline jurisdiction. Mitigation measures that would screen the bulk or increase setbacks for any building over 3-stories or 35 feet in height have been imposed. There was no indication of whether or not docks would be proposed for the shoreline lots. 16. The density for the plat would be established after subtracting sensitive areas and roadways. The May Creek sensitive area is approximately 30,350 square feet; the Lake Washington sensitive area approximately 66,850 square feet; and the roadways are 153,331 square feet. Subtracting this total of 255,429 square feet from the full acreage and dividing by 115 units yields a density of 6.8 dwelling units per acre. Although, Proposed Lot 95 is not currently proposed for development(see below)which could affect the density calculation slightly. Also affecting the calculation could be the cul-de-sac requirements of the Fire Department at roadway ends and turnarounds. 17. The applicant proposes phasing the project. Phase 1 would include Proposed Lots 96 to 115, the lots south and east of May Creek, located along Proposed Street C. Phase 2 would include all of the rest of the proposed lots, Proposed Lots I to 94, except Proposed Lot 95. Proposed Lot 9.5 contains an existing Now boathouse and dock which the applicant intends to retain. A further review would be necessary to determine if such a standalone use would be permitted in the COR-2 District. Barbee mill Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-02-040, EIS, PP, SA-H, SM February 22, 2005 Page 10 18. The COR zone does not provide a minimum lot size for single-family housing. The lots will range in size from 1,779 square feet to 16,867 square feet. The plat submitted demonstrated lots that vary from 25 feet wide to 55 feet wide and from 66 feet to 211 feet deep. Lot depth along the lake includes the 50 feet shoreline setback as well as submerged portions of lots. As noted, there would be attached units in which case side yards would be located between the multiple family,townhome units. The applicant has proposed 5-foot side yards, and 10-foot front and rear yards. 19. Access to some of the lots, Proposed Lots 23,24, 67 and 68 as well as Lots 43 to 48 would be via private easements. These would meet code requirements other than the Fire Department's requirement for a cul-de-sac in some instances. 20. The applicant proposes a number of features that include open space, street trees, access to a DNR parcel and a 10 foot pathway between Proposed Lots 20 and 21 to the property north of the site, the Quendall properties. Wetland preservation and shoreline preservation would be accomplished with setbacks of 50 feet where 35 feet would be native landscaping along with 15 feet of manicured areas adjacent to homes. Staff calculated that approximately 5 acres of the site would be landscaped. Irrigation would be required for landscaping areas. The applicant proposes a 6-foot soft surface trail along the south side of May Creek and interpretive area at end of the trail. A landscaped series of tracks near the north central and northwest corner of the site will deal with storm water and connect to the Department of Natural Resources property located along the lake front. This would provide general access to the lake. Light and glare issues as well as a host of other issues have been addressed by an extensive list of mitigation measures attached to the issuance of the final EIS. 21. Staff has suggested that the attached units have a common pathway or not more than two for 3-unit and `N` 4-unit buildings to the lake rather than separate paths to limit intrusions into the shoreline buffer areas. The applicant would prefer that each unit have its own path. 22. The subject site is located within the Renton School District. The project is expected to generate approximately 45 school age children. These students would be spread across the grades and would be assigned on a space available basis. 23. The development will increase traffic by approximately 10 trips per unit or approximately 1,150 trips for the 115 homes. Approximately ten percent of the trips will be generated in the morning and evening. 24. Stormwater would be handled and conveyed by Tracts D, E and F. These would provide water quality before water is released into the receiving waters of May Creek or Lake Washington. Mitigation measures were imposed as a result of the EIS reviews. Portions of the subject site are located within the 100-year flood plain. 25. Sewer and water services will be provided by the City. 26. The applicant was concerned about some of the conditions recommended by staff. Condition#6 required certain standards for turnarounds and the applicant wanted the ability to propose alternatives. Condition #7 required compensation for areas where the 50-foot buffer along Lake Washington's shoreline was reduced, suggesting that it be provided elsewhere as common open space. Condition #8 was noted above where staff recommended that the paths from units to Lake Washington be limited to not more than two for three or more units. Barbee mill Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-02-040, EIS, PP, SA-H, SM February 22, 2005 Page 11 "k✓ 27. It was suggested that additional shading be required along May Creek to provide better salmon habitat. There was also concern regarding protection of the various buffers. 28. Contaminent remediation would continue as development of the site proceeds. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary Plat l. The proposed plat appears to serve the public use and interest. Although the COR zoning would have accommodated a mix of high quality office and residential uses, it does permit solely residential uses of the kind proposed by the plat. The development will provide mainly small but high quality lots due to the plat's very desirable location adjacent to May Creek and Lake Washington. 2. Reusing what has been a recently underused industrial parcel will increase the tax base of the City. It also provides in-city, urban-scale housing in an area where urban services such as water and sewer are readily available. 3. The lots are generally rectangular with reasonable access to the City's street system. There is an issue with access to the proposed lots located at the end of extended deadend Streets A and C. The lots will have to meet Fire Department access standards. That might mean that full cul-de-sac turnarounds will have to be carved out of lots near the dead ends of proposed Streets A and C. This determination will be solely at the discretion of the Fire Department. 4. Access to the plat will be provided via two routes into and out of the subject site. That should provide reasonable circulation although both would have at-grade crossings of railroad tracks. Crossings of those tracks are governed by State law and mitigation measures imposed under the EIS. Transportation mitigation fees have also been required to help offset the plat's impacts on City roadways. 5. The applicant will be paying Parks Mitigation fees to help counter the impacts created by new residents on the City's parks and recreational programs. Similarly, the applicant will pay a fee to offset its impacts on fire services. 6. In the main, the proposed plat appears to be a reasonable way of dividing the subject site allowing ownership of individual lots while increasing the density of the site by providing an arrangement of attached townhomes. Site Plan 7. The following criteria are used in reviewing general site plans as well as those requiring Level II Site Plan analysis. It should be noted that Level II analysis is based on more conceptual submissions and does not require the level of detail otherwise required under Site Plan Review. Section 4-9-200E: DECISION CRITERIA FOR SITE PLAN AND MASTER PLANS: The Reviewing Official shall review and act upon plans based upon a finding that the proposal meets comprehensive planning considerations and the criteria in this subsection and in Barbee mill Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-02-040, EIS, PP, SA-H, SM February 22. 2005 Page 12 subsection F of this Section, as applicable. These criteria also provide a frame of reference for the applicant in developing a site, but are not intended to discourage creativity and innovation. Review criteria include the following: 1. General Review Criteria for Both Master Plans and Site Plan Review: a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, its elements and policies. In determining compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, conformance to the objectives and policies of the specific land use designation shall be given consideration over citywide objectives and policies; b. Conformance with existing land use regulations; c. Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses; d. Mitigation of impacts of the proposed site plan to the site; e. Conservation of area wide property values; f. Safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation; g. Provision of adequate light and air; h. Mitigation of noise, odors and other harmful or unhealthy conditions; i. Availability of public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use; j. Prevention of neighborhood deterioration and blight; k. Additional Special Review Criteria for COR, UC-N1, and UC-N2 Zones Only: i. The plan is consistent with a Planned Action Ordinance, if applicable; and ii. The plan creates a compact, urban development that includes a compatible mix of uses that meets the Comprehensive Plan vision and policy statements for the Center Office Residential or Urban Center North Comprehensive Plan designations; and iii. The plan provides an overall urban design concept that is internally consistent, and provides quality development; and iv. The plan incorporates public and private open spaces to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users of the site, and/or to protect existing natural systems; and v. The plan provides view corridors to the shoreline area and Mt. Rainier where applicable; and vi. Public access is provided to water and/or shoreline areas; and vii. The plan provides distinctive focal points such as public area plazas, prominent architectural features, or other items; and viii. Public and/or private streets are arranged in a layout that provides reasonable access to property and supports the land use envisioned; and ix. The plan accommodates and promotes transit, pedestrian, and other alternative modes of transportation. 8. The proposal is compatible with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. The plan suggests that this site is suitable for Center Office Residential uses.that is any of a combination of office or residential uses or one of those uses exclusively. While a better use of the property might have been a mixed-use development with high quality office and residential uses, both the Zoning Code and comprehensive plan allow an exclusive residential use of the subject site. Barbee mill Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-02-040, EIS, PP, SA-H, SM February 22, 2005 Page 13 °`nr•, 9. It appears that the proposed use complies with the Zoning Code. The proposed residential use does comply. The bulk standards that the applicant has proposed meet or exceed the standards for residential uses found in the COR regulations. The zone permits buildings of 10 stories or 125 feet in height while buildings between 50 and 75 feet have been proposed. The front and rear yards proposed also meet or exceed those required in this zone. Compliance with the Fire and Building Codes will be determined when building permit applications are reviewed. All access, roadway width and length and turnarounds will have to meet Fire Department requirements. 10. The site is pretty well separated from adjoining properties and other than traffic, a generalized impact that any development would affect, the development should not affect neighboring properties. One impact discussed is that redevelopment will affect some of the view properties upslope of the site. The redevelopment of the subject site will add to the ambient light during evenings. Residential development will increase night lighting from the site. This impact has been absent from this recently under-utilized site. Street lighting standards are dictated by code. The proposed buildings will also be somewhat taller than what has generally been located on the site but they fall within the permissible height limits of the COR Zone. 11. The site plan contains about five acres of open space and access to the shoreline of Lake Washington via a path to DNS property. There will be limited visual access to the lake from the street system since side yards between buildings are narrow and 50-foot tall buildings will create somewhat of a wall. There will be access to May Creek via a walking path which will also lead to the lakeshore. Sidewalks are required along the public streets that will serve the site and street trees are proposed along the roads. 12. Redevelopment of this large, lakefront site will increase the tax base of the City and should enhance *ow, property values for this site and surrounding sites. 13. It appears that the roads will provide reasonable access to the subject site, clearly affected at some times by rail traffic that could block access into or out of the site not only for residents and visitors but also for emergency personnel. Roadways will still have to be designed to meet all Fire Department requirements. Sidewalks along the streets will provide reasonable pedestrian access. 14. The buildings appear to be reasonably spaced and meet Zoning limitations although side yards between these potentially taller buildings will create somewhat of a block for light and air. 15. Impermeable surfaces from the former operations would be removed. There should not be any untoward noise or odors once construction is completed and all contamination has been or will be removed from the site. 16. Public services including water and sewer service will be available to the site. Stormwater will receive water quality treatment and be discharged to the lake. 17. In addition to the projects compliance with the standard Site Plan criteria noted above, the project must also generally satisfy the Level 11 Site Plan criteria. There is no Planned Action Ordinance in this case. The townhome project is not as dense as might be anticipated for the COR Zone but the site is quite constrained by its sensitive location more or less sandwiched between Lake Washington on the west and May Creek on the east. It achieves a reasonable density of 6.8 dwelling units when it has to provide water quality treatment and open space beyond that found in its sensitive shorelines. Nture 18. The conceptual plans submitted do not answer questions about the internal cohesion of the project other than it would be united by a townhome theme and street trees. There are no building footprints nor Barbee mill Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-02-040. EIS, PP. SA-H, SM February 22, 2005 Page 14 facade features nor definitive building heights that provide a clue to internal consistency. These issues will have to be addressed when actual plans are submitted. 19. There are both private spaces, yards and shoreline setbacks, and public open spaces and the natural systems are preserved by the buffers required by Code and conditions imposed on the project. At the same time, the applicant may not sidestep around the required mitigation buffer of 50 feet along the lake. Since the applicant did not appeal those buffer setbacks it cannot then design lots that do not meet that standard. Staff has suggested a compromise that allows the buffers to be reduced but calling for compensation for the lost square footage. That seems appropriate. So either the applicant shall redesign the plat to meet the setback buffer required by mitigation or they shall provide the compensation suggested by staff. 20. The intrusions into the shoreline setbacks along Lake Washington should be limited as this area is supposed to be natural. Therefore, staffs recommendation that the number of paths from units to the lakeshore shall be limited to one path for each two attached units or two for 3 or more attached units is reasonable. While the applicant indicated this might create ownership issues, if these various dwellings can share common walls and common roof systems, they can accommodate shared paths to the lake. 21. The plan does not appear to provide any view corridors to the shoreline of Lake Washington but does provide a walking path along May Creek. The code is not clear what it means by"where applicable" and there is the path to the DNS land which might provide access if not an outright view corridor. Similarly, there is the interpretive area at the end of May Creek which will be accessible from the proposed trail. 22. The open space tracts provide a form of focal point, as do the pathways to the DNR property and the Ned end of(Flay Creek. These features also provide access to the water features on the subject site. 23. The roads and paths provide reasonable access to the site and its features subject to the issues noted above. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should approve the proposed plat subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the mitigations measures formulated as a result of the EIS process. 2. Landscaping shall be installed, similar to that illustrated on the preliminary landscape plans, dated January 3, 2005. The landscaping is to be installed prior to the issuance of the certificate of building occupancy or final inspection, as applicable. The satisfaction of this requirement is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Project Manager. 3. Final landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted prior to the recording of the final plat for each phase. The satisfaction of this requirement is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Project Manager 4. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and complete all inspections and approvals for all buildings. except those located on Lot 95, located on the property prior to the recording of the final plat. The satisfaction of this requirement is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Project Manager Barbee mill Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-02-040, EIS, PP, SA-H, SM February 22. 2005 Page 15 5. A homeowner's association or maintenance agreement shall be created concurrently with the recording of the final plat in order to establish maintenance responsibilities for all shared improvements, including landscaping, utilities, private access easements, etc. A draft of the document(s), if necessary, shall be submitted to the City of Renton Development Services Division for review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to recording of the final plat. 6. The applicant shall dedicate the public right-of-way for the north entrance to the project, labeled as Street F, prior to the recording of the final plat. The satisfaction of this requirement is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Project Manager. 7. The applicant shall revise the plat to provide for the required Fire emergency turnarounds and/or cul-de- sacs or additional access road at the end of the private access easement serving Lots 43 to 48 and at the south end of Street C prior to recording of the final plat. The satisfaction of this requirement is subject to the review and approval o the Development Services Project Manager. The Fire Department shall have sole discretion in these matters. 8. The applicant shall provide compensation for the reduction of managed landscaped yard of that portion of the 50 foot buffer along the shoreline of Lake Washington by providing: common open space or native plantings or other agreed upon compensation prior to recording of the final plat. The satisfaction of this requirement is subject to the review an approval of the Development Services Project Manager. 9. The lots fronting the Lake Washington shoreline shall be limited to one walkway/trail per building/structure and/or one walkway per each two units, in the event that the structures would contain fir✓ more than two units. The satisfaction of this requirement is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Project Manager. 10. The Fire Department shall approve all road widths, lengths and turnaround provisions. 11. The applicant's proposed yard setbacks shall be used when the buildings are constructed. Those yards shall be a minimum of 5-foot side yards, and 10-foot front and rear yards. 12. Staff shall determine the legal status of Proposed Lot 95. DECISION: The Level II Site Plan is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the mitigations measures formulated as a result of the EIS process. 2. Landscaping shall be installed, similar to that illustrated on the preliminary landscape plans, dated January 3, 2005. The landscaping is to be installed prior to the issuance of the certificate of building occupancy or final inspection, as applicable. The satisfaction of this requirement is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Project Manager. 3. Final landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted prior to the recording of the final plat for each phase. The satisfaction of this requirement is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Project Manager Barbee mill Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-02-040, EIS. PP, SA-H, SM February 22, 2005 Page 16 4. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and complete all inspections and approvals for all buildings, except those located on Lot 95, located on the property prior to the recording of the final plat. The satisfaction of this requirement is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Project Manager 5. A homeowners association or maintenance agreement shall be created concurrently with the recording of the final plat in order to establish maintenance responsibilities for all shared improvements, including landscaping. utilities, private access easements, etc. A draft of the document(s), if necessary, shall be submitted to the City of Renton Development Services Division for review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to recording of the final plat. 6. The applicant shall dedicate the public right-of-way for the north entrance to the project, labeled as Street F, prior to the recording of the final plat. The satisfaction of this requirement is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Project Manager. 7. The applicant shall revise the plat to provide for the required Fire emergency turnarounds and/or cul-de- sacs or additional access road at the end of the private access easement serving Lots 43 to 48 and at the south end of Street C prior to recording of the final plat. The satisfaction of this requirement is subject to the review and approval o the Development Services Project Manager. 8. The applicant shall provide compensation for the reduction of managed landscaped yard of that portion of the 50 foot buffer along the shoreline of Lake Washington by providing: common open space or native plantings or other agreed upon compensation prior to recording of the final plat. The satisfaction of this requirement is subject to the review an approval of the Development Services Project Manager. 9. The lots fronting the Lake Washington shoreline shall be limited to one walkway/trail per building/structure and/or one walkway per each two units, in the event that the structures would contain more than two units. The satisfaction of this requirement is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Project Manager. 10. The Fire Department shall approve all road widths, lengths and turnaround provisions. 11. The applicant's proposed yard setbacks shall be used when the buildings are constructed. Those yards shall be a minimum of 5-foot side yards, and 10-foot front and rear yards. 12. Staff shall determine the legal status of Proposed Lot 95. ORDERED THIS 22nd day of February 2005. FRED J. KAUFAN HEARING EXAMINER r Barbee mill Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-02-040, EIS, PP, SA-H, SM February 22, 2005 Page 17 TRANSMITTED THiS 22°d day of February 2005 to the parties of record: Susan Fiala Steven Wood Kayren Kittrick 1055 S Grady Way Century Pacific LP 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 1501 Fourth Ave. Ste. 2140 Renton, WA 98055 Seattle, WA 98101 Alex Cugini Barbee Mill Company Matt Hough Campbell Mathewson PO Box 359 Otak, Inc. Century Pacific LP Renton, WA 98057 10230 NE Points Dr. Ste. 400 1501 Fourth Ave. Ste. 2140 Kirkland, WA 98033 Seattle, WA 98101 Tom Goeltz Lynn Manolopoulos Rich Wagner Davis Wright Tremaine Davis Wright Tremaine 2411 Garden Court 1504 Fourth Ave. Ste. 2600 777 108'x'Avenue NE, Ste. 2300 Renton, WA 98056 Seattle, WA 98101 Bellevue, WA 98104 Larry Reymann Mark Hancock Fritz Timm 1313 N 38`x' Street PO Box 88811 Sr. Engineer, City of Newcastle Renton, WA 98056 Seattle, WA 98138 13020 Newcastle Way Newcastle, WA 98059 Nrr✓ TRANSMITTED TI-IiS 22"day of February 2005 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Stan Engler, Fire Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Larry Meckling, Building Official Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Planning Commission Larry Warren, City Attorney Transportation Division Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Utilities Division Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Neil Watts, Development Services Jennifer Henning, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services King County Journal Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,March 8,2005. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,March 8,2005. Barbee mill Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-02-040, EIS, PP, SA-H, SM February 22, 2005 Page 18 If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. Nor.' Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat LUA-02-040, EIS, PP, SA-H, SM To: All Parties of Record If you would like to remain on the party of record list, please contact the Hearing Examiner's office at 425-430-6515. (If no one answers, please leave a message stating your name and address and that you would like to remain on the Barbee Mill Party of Record list.) Otherwise, your name will be removed from the list. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, N.M. BARBEE MILL PRELIMINARY PLAT - NEIGHBORHOOD DETAIL MAP :,,........ z.T., . .(-- .. MAI'MAC( g141.C.tre0,1:ror' titkIgVI,ti a ti tl101!al*" • 1 1 r ;!,..:,0,1 •,_.....„,,.. ., ,,,.,..., ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,..,,, ,, .•=0 ,ii,1,;345,.Ey.,114,„, ,,,,,... !,., LAKE WASHINGTON 410 11:141-aFe'vrgri troga .io* k.zirr, .,IN ---. . .,„ .. _____________„ 41, ..dlir4ENIVAira.lt.:i',412-AAt."-kt:Ab..— iii4,,./4*-,-; ' \ \ 1 , ::17.7"..u..,• •.• ,Nt4 , z•mina'TO.1 7.4 itt.la-1M;10'-3, ' .i....""...It 4 4•Q,4 4.:, ........ —, 4.`,','-:,•:, .1. •,73 :_,., rj'.. 1, ,, pa .131 PM tia 7- PNE ..42• , 4; cc • - --4,• . 1 ; ''s q.,41- ' 1W tr." 19 Vs u•-1 We, ips" , - , , <, '.1.. 1.E '4.8111._ 1 i .1‘ , . •,... . sc.2 c:_.:',. . RN 7ton ME. 1 , cif.,, .0,. . .• ,1 ..••• ..,„ ,•,. 3••• 'k.,,Z 1•7:..,„Y,,,,, 1'.) t'ilf .61':1'-. p• . ', R...^ bi Z_:'.1W-...,,,i a ,44.tee 'I ;4',,' -1,. •,. No, 0,4, Ci -s• .„. , '.^ .'..*'-- a “ .', "' iet- 10. '71 IP ,ni.: Q ,-, v-fA Jiro-,- 4 ' • .- d', 4: ' \ tl.i ,,A01, nr.....z.,i c.v....rn ,...pN*Am,x•,.......,- ... , Cir." , s.., , kiljel,..-:34yE :" ' - M4iikA 6-1:4'W _Elf,:aliq <,, ' ri 11>t ,....411,2' k, „wg,IF. 0 \ I . , • .,,,,%.F. ?ipz,tii &-c-,Ta-- '0,,,,, 1, t .1[;.i Ni411,,ar. ,,,togyZ, ff.. Irt:4,<7.. . , CD VACANT 0 <, le • ,410iir''' AP.1 rani! P' ' .....1 F . V..`. .., , W A,A 4 ig,„• ' 1,4,ii',..i • 'ii. ' ' — „„.,,...„„„. .. . 4 2022 :22 , ,. 0 0 , 't. i'6 2„61 "-le a,"" W.21.41 al 1 '2.2,I..;11 231i; ;.. C A'1:'• 1411 ....,...t.d7 ° 1 h•lit':. • ' ''''`12, ° 4 1 1 ' ' \\I 8! ,,,lirll.'"...,cp'I i‘i, '' oft • (14,4 ",.. '''L'Vk.. - 1 1 i; h,„, 4- .---84 ...xtly.,1116- , , '44.... . , .'''''' 7 ''' • ' 7 ,.E Ps 1 b. 4* •.; i .tr g -7--ea ' -, ''' •RV . Pi . N , „ 4, .... -9' '4.01" - / • ,,,t, s >-, ''• ' .5'l'ilp k 1 1 5' 0,0's nn 42,1'41 -izzi bili 4' • • "747'44-‘'Lt'4°'-c4' ti/..'*, ' .;", ,r) 1 %i N.0 °,; ,..,,, .,_____ , _ ......., ; ' NPOIIINSMINMPIli '-. .4 • zo tat ' '";•...'"••40 , 1 s y N ,,, ..., '°'9•4 ::...-'-=7":""0.•t ° 1,1J- Iiiiiiiiiii.L.:r:1.-... ..,_,..,.., *****- - '' \ -1. atilltl i .°.. -""'",-...i; ° , '''''.All relit:, •,... 4, Air 'Ir....-..,„... , - . •''.7.•'7-''''':'--zr'-°•'"..;-,,,=-=•-.._- {r,"irtc&.. • ' --4-- 'IT 1---.7-s-,.\ - -0-.13,14‘,:, ! 1M som ILI 57., - oft......------ 07:,- ' s gintsit Asm, _ •..I, . ,1*----'-,''' \ ..--, ...,..A. 4'. k4,* .t g*' -'4.°'1-r 111°Wei4141 --h-' c3 ir,",,i t tt - • ) ''" .)--, ' M,Ik4 ` __.........i.......i> -.....'',_ ,,,,r 1... i_........... ' •---, , . , t-, i.141. / ...., +,, I b [I'i' llif.":'7' ..,,,N,, ,, , • : - f ...,,J, . ! „. , , , . , 1 -...1'15' , • = n ,-r-I _ r,11 1 , v,1.-, ,,....../ • -. .6..7.7.:1-........... -,- ' ' 14---.. 1 r,•- ,---* . . QEON i ::-V --,,, ' •-• "-licialing110 z „,,_, .. , . ,.... , ., . A,74 c,11 eth.e. 1 -4... "- 2( ' t Z 1., ° .2.' q" 0 0,t.q1cJA /Dv df ...,,1 , ,v.P._:;;;11.0.;;C:i 1 , . , !----,-_,/''' „A/ 5_ 1 ,- IAN . . " I: " 30 ivglfm....„„•,, c• •I • .: , . 4.„, •••••• . .,,irimetiprt I it. ___-___! Ir. - - - ,-,,J ---- -- --- -- ivarar. N-E"VlcASTI:: - , ... aunevigaillam- "a! • 1411 ?ppm pir ... a•i ',,,:,7' 0# ir '' ''''' '• st 10.,,,k 3 ..„,„ . t "3 mrnt;nye,ft 111,,wk- vo ...it I ' e ri . 0 ,,,,...-....... .,_, -. •'ad Per • ,, , $1;p4,4,,,,*ISM 10 111 idt ...6,-.1,,‘ ... C TY 10F"NT•N; sw—itor poi, 4Fq ;via,- )., .tt— 4p.,...,quar-inc."' f:— -"-"Toy,-----'"--- 10130 4 FeloLi 0,, 1 tl. , 1•• 11 te:. Iv..lotil),...50,74 tit. .....,10,1,i„, .,_ iz, .....}....4...„, ,g __ .r.to CTINEvvpAsL ammo 1„wr.,,Elinv _,e •-it,,,, 4 — ' a, 0 ,,...11441 121 444 0 . pit ',Ai&,I.,400 1•41° 6741111g 1 s 1 ;1 ' 7,1' ' 31161617.626 ' .-^' 11110)," '7.""ni le... . 0 ,00 200 400 Z "'" ' -... ' 1 .Eat, :M1,.Sia, ' '., :''""."" 0 0 ) ' 4,, ' •,,,, M , . .11:6,t\6 rikafi q (Thr....1 ,...,.. ., -\----"7,7.' AVM . I , ,4 mixottlig 9- i. 1, _ (..,_ x p...• ' .•'..,'" 1,..., .g i ' d • •I•7.1 :.: 1::•1• • : 'IP' *.I. ; " t ,., • •. . CO _.. .4.• ( .• Ilk ( PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1 SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M. 7,,:,,,,,.. BARBEE MILL PRELIMINARY PLAT ,9��=w .0,...,7. OVERALL PLAT PLAN / ,, �/ ! =0 / ///4/,'. ! J I/i / /li',.. I/ / / r X ! % /i ,NJ wv naa ' \, _ '114,tik) YI.Y I -- ii, 111: • !'11:i „ .,,, , . 'IN' �/ ..4 ; // —if , I ] ,�n.�l....(.E.i .,Lily' Cp'A"�r[+ I 1 LAKE WASHINGTON ` ° �p7. ,1� �/' r� „_• 1'..y.'.":)!"' . W 1 / ,,,, 21111111111,1 VIM 4 7#, , iikely, /,. / ' .{ XL,,,%. .. TULL IN FM < /. / rte., . , 14.., y.A, VICINITY MAP F C a. ,.. . 1 II " ,; , •"" ',/4")/7 ''� LEGAL DESCRIPTION: > m:8 d Mg� - �J W Y P i, / '� RTSµ0p N.MOR TO T0I cSNLOT16I R sRV.rco IN ra ATM or Z t . o� ` . .*.^F. ' `,: °D /,tP , NalaroN.coVNTY or Kpa AND a otacluew Ar FOLLOW] Z 'i.,7L 1�� \ "':,,-.�` ,/ 'C ..A.TUT POT.A PORTON 00VLRMRNi L01 I.sermon al.O SWORD „Nom PP %, ._ \ ,r, -,.w,.' / \�� I, RANGE 1 DS A d 11/10 VATTAR. o WO ,0 - I �• d +=%j'j r Or NIT [A THAT Lnxa ttPI ANA Or UTENORTHERN LLNO5 RIND HO RICHT ,� JO �.1�'�, / [ACM THAT PON Or 11NY,OI NP aN S.001 LYpG NOMN OT ,�f .,�•T-- \ /P ..�.+ TM.G9IQLY INOOVCTON Or TIE NORTH UNP Or S.001'LPNIf[1R LOT w "i/IA!ne�j. y I-.+,/. ,�y/- eA !gr' • slTu.n IN TNt MINT.or Kwo,aT.n or r.sluNa.on ' Q... ; *' / / 1 FLOOD HAZARD .��r - I d]� NB ,/��/ 1110:44,,,,,,n, __-— TM=100 FOLD M00 WARN Ii<OMAptO M}NIN THE NAY CREEK aM'N] IT.� F'- X S • 1 LI n; IN '4* ' 5 \M ,X 7Epj., ''• 7 -_._._,_ LEGEND a ' .. j / • // ^•' I 1UNE SHORELINE BUFFER RU- a Y W� 4 f,� 1, J•I f I //;'Ix, ,,'. I .1,,,,,,„PUNTWGS U�ITEO 70 NATIVE rr1 ,x /y PINI Juu �E-- I PCµTS.NO OM55C5 N ,4 - ^ r / ./ / \ / \ Y CREEK BUV AREA- N O ��'r �J�'fl s a' / j I� I BVEECR PLANTINGS LIurtEO TO N.irvE — i /;'/ /' %/ L f PUNTS.ANO GRASSES t, /' .' /� / IS'MUI pGEO UNOSCAPC DUFFER AREA- C V I' I ( / �, II BNrPER UNTNGT Y INCLUDE LAWN w� ass -../...,;,‘,.. , � /- // \ `�' / �,'tid A 0 OT 4IANAGCOAUNOSCAPE 4Af CR ALT Cr)Q ©Gl J y�1 .[nPa Ha or•NN 030209 001 001 G I' - __ / goo— I •l� "i''r CiO�1 w oD S ..:._..__._.w.ososr.._... „ N 40TH ST ,__J iuu g ' WOOD X CA- -I Phase IU , ) ') PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M. .. ._ . --a-+ - - ---, ,-- -- ,., r .' m.,,, r---' i 4.•• 24 '* 22 21 20 19 10 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 a 5 4 3 2 .,•! . i : iii:••1 -1 7 . --- ----dIN- dle die i dli - -die dli di di di ' :« - 2, : .011113....„3.33.333. 6333.•33. 33.3.3.33,,,,amoomm,,3333333.313.m..3133833.333.3....0333.3333 .33.3......••••••..../mr.... ''',333,,.., ..romforam .333.wroope3.1111 . 1 i 1 ' • 1 i _________ r' ..:*-=-,_ or _ •_.:...._ __I__•-• _________ . ______;..',.„,,,,,.:„._ ... lagritorr,/, , ' ,, , _-4,..2.... %'A ttk: 2. / „,, smagarrammeamme•••••• • •..11111 .:, -v , 1.1,,,I,.; , / .,',..' •• /I.,' / .,,.,''. • ,',..,,,,.,,,,:',:, 64.-,,,,, ,. 1 i , " 7'7/ 76 79/ 80 ," / 81/ 82 ''44,'.*' 894' 71 70 89 ,, , '‘., /4;tz , ,‘,;:'!-,,, ' 1 ,,,,./• ,,9.:. -2. , C-------. ,t,t, ,, / ,,,',,;:. ‘• / ',;4s,i,44i,,,, SA 1,',,,, -, ,. , , •0,1 ,,,,. • re , I:::, " 1 ''O'f • /';';.''.:'i'j:., • % ,',''''''X'1,':'.:. • a'ai.Z4,2A,, , /4„;€°,e, .4 ',,' 44'.' I .. 4013.1 a i !,-.1,,,,,,:,,, •,',Af•' .•••4,•-:',,' '-'.t',',',," ''''''',/th;,.‘•-%;,t';';'41,0-,•%,,A,41•) ...",tel,'4•, •4 A ..-- -„ . - „ _• / l' 4,,, _. ........ 1 ..,.,1 24.,,,,.....,. .,,,::,, .,.,.,,,,.....,....,...:,,, ..,,,,,, „....:t......,,. ......:•4,,,,,,,,'SP/i..,',4".4 'c''.4r71' / ..`,.. 62'4 I err ------, .7-;'"' --------Its,' Se 31111111 3.ziie, ,E3 314 '''''r\17..,.'3-. 3e.e"*"- ''.11%.',...7-7::1-''. • --..1-1.1t,..:;'. '.:•111.0'1';1:-,4.1'4/IF e =...... ''41. " '' 11:'‘''...:..".' •. . . . .. ..... ' . . '...' . ' . --j''';:g:a1,:;;':4r/I'':'' ' ' if , , ,,, 33kitnt..311 ocls*T% LIN "---'----.- , ' t'• • • . ..P.3, +1.3,31,,,,V ' '',',, 84 ' ' ,.. _ “/ ; '/67 66/. r 4.4 .. `,----._,_ . ,,,.--•' • ' . . '''1,,'i':',5'..s.. ''`'.` N '•1P i,V - a 7 ' ' 1, ,.;,',"/14•••••4',. ,••.44,',44.,"77, .14't•/*',t‘':'109: *: • • • •• • •,...' .-'", 8 Allir7"?-4.041r tiif'''..?'... • •• • . • ., ,,4,. 4.:'*A' ' '` `\ " ,kt,j',. i/ ``„ /s.. ,' / ;02( •• ,•%A,..sorgt- ..,i• .. . • • .,,';;.44 :" '• Ne7 ''''''' ' ' •. '' / 51 il , .„ ,, ,, . ,...,..,, • • • • . ;,,;;, , ', ' " ',s‘.,...' /" ,... ' "'.-:0:40;:itirS ,P 'I ‘"•':.0; li,.'i 41:1\ _ • • ••, ,fr., i ' „ '„', ...--- Ir. ,.:' ,'''t 0 / •, 7••••:e. '. '-, 5„, -.-, -,,,,,_,,,,...,,„,.4.,...... ..40„, ., .•.. ..,..• .,,,,,,.. .,k, N'''N `.2, ....;:....;...... .10. .„,/ ' ./ /' .4+' , ;• / ,', e'_ :!'1".1---'---------, ',‘:1,:' 'Z;!..,' ;,-;.' 4'' ''ss'• " '- >1011' 14006 '' ; \ " /•4:::**''•'• ' 31 ‘1\ 141316P'..,:':`,.•7,4..':..(:, / .. '• s,, --' ...1,1401111110 IP Iiiiii'- , ...-- ',‘, , i•:••- .: .,,../".77 ,f.' •.;:1:40.,.' (' it '' ' '...w.‹. 1. ...4111i0 .......°101.:-.' 82 s' .•4 , / • / / c:•co 7.8 E -'----" \ ,A., ,,,,, -,.,,, N. - 0....z.co?.. -,._,......-....- ss- ,A4.1.7 /7,,,9 * . .. ... t , -,.... cw.;:-,.....,. Ik 61 ..• 4',1 , # .......... 611 (' :;"140114,,;:i'• ,,---' ,, ' 80\‘‘‘‘ ••• O. Y.'"4 , / w ----------------- , „ .1, ,,r,ot,..-t „la,tit • , ,,, ,9 \ 33 .4 igh " ' /,..1,0' eki,..;` '',"'• s', \55 N \ s' `,//,,,::::/ i 1 /', C... '2,.. "... I: --40•14.2414444.444-7 2-•••-4--.4" " ', to: - i .... ,. / e 01 4, 4- - . . ‘ .`.. IL., .,.i.*• --,,' ' . 7` i.cf >-- W C' ;,),•,•\,,;;A:i ----------mil• \Z.:: *Pi,'•. ' \ t "V , ....•••., •• -",,, , •, , ....••••• . ,„,-- ,., ,,,,..,..=....;:....:,... ....4 V .2 gi z , w z z. , w , , MIN •. .,..".• -------- ill ,„ ___,_,--."--.4 0,4„,,),' ,, , , 55 r ,;',*.:',::::: 35 , Viilentilt "-:.k.';, '.•'4, \54 ' 1' ::`',i1:.:1 , -'-C•••,,‘4::; •e' ' 7.-' •,.•,.....“4"4,.. ' , .'" '''' -.' )... L, ,24 L., . .,,.::.:•--:‘44,- , . Aipo.f.,......... \,:s.\,s6 3 \ '/X..,-.....F\ -, .....7,44.- ... _.,„-•-,,Q ' • ,41..tp 8 • , "••••- , , ,,,,---..e., . '2,.•A..., i ' , eV° ''•. '•. 44 i,k, . • '' 4 0`.- ••' xoe•4r i ..:r:Pio ' A •• .1.' 114 52 ,:`,, ',‘ ..\ ' .004, z' ',,. -•• ,,./..-------- ••,1 ,; ,,,, , / SEE SHEET L1_2 .. . ii ' , I I . . g r ..),, ' . , •• • . - Plant List - o 0 a . ,. 1,f ow ......, =Kr= t1"13.1.1. 8..9O1' IIGIVE1111=ils "s__14330311 VeraESS Vi.o.o, v.°, S.." L) ;irer;;;Z:e. ,--, u.SHOP ELME KY 301 4.61,- .Y . 1 IllY 1.. I 660" 40 'VIZ' .G.mArsataz-azda a02-1,1 a 0 ''',,,,,,,..",c..'. "'WS" .1" AS ENO 0. 0._JEleigLES I ES- 110M11 1130111110 11t0 TO 1301114 4'11 33 I 30 PI 33140 DrIn 0 0 20' 40' 60 1.011111.1.1.I SEE0LLIS ASK 1100. 11"1411E1 131.4110rC = '''''''"*."'''''''' ''''3"" =1 CKELEI gier 03333.33 hum,.1000 133•3 ill31 on-.... I 1 "" MOM tbodnoviCA SIAC.1 AS SMILE, .011101 WOE'3n73'3- .1 EVAIVArrid 3-,s'or NA,' tr.,="" ,f.rn cissi 01177,„rztt,ruo--, Z 109(30,pp, Mu. eiNE3 1.1,1011,1111,11.1111...14 .-1111.1.1 =rsaZirT3161=WE..P..7 _1 M. >< 11.--.}-- n.'2422.14.2M1 !..1."::.te 01150310 Tint,10 3131.1•133 GOOSE COKIROS KOGCS 3 0 C pER/METER OP mytitror-4 IDS/1000SP 111A APPROMPTE 3014 449'04#005444.SO rr 4 1.130111 =1 AGPCS.a 13 CCM- 1714 CJI PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M. rx.V.. n'..*2..... ....t..4-_, SEE SHEET 1.1_1 q . ei'' \ 50nu ,., /x.A.,..• 2 54 ,.14.4. .,. .•j''';1 _________al ell‘l v', ..-V, - >,_,,,,,—.,:, c•.' ,: , • P• -- ______-iv I 1 I •• ze. _____„. L.,. ,o‘s:,'•,,/ / '''.. //' ''' ,4. 0. I: ---- _________ ,,,\,\ •": :, '\ _1,7‘iii,,, ,.., ;( ,'te , ; , ‘,61,1,Sor 56•441644 14:;:::,,,,,e0: tz • /. ,7 , ,c,,,,, /5,3' /7/"" ;I I <1 11",1::.. 115 '''‘.4 . • 1,'", ° /3',' , 4.4,614,4•4.457.0. MIL x/r , N , , t,, st4''-`•.'/ '' ' tr. 1111'. —111-- , ,, ---,.. ,.. -..„, • , / g ,/,''''`..41,;,,1:•:4, m;inc, ......, ‘41 ''' V: ,, * ' ';-, ' ill'`‘‘`/ . 'I ''/ /414 •' :f/,, . -..---••,_. 1: IT.:---," : 1 '' ' '1 l'' IP Al*' ,''''/.''' "''' ' 1/ A„, = g ' , __. ,4,, ' , ,,,-,'4: • . ., ; / / V:Ir ,•,' Plant ilst 1 i i .......4 4/7,: _ '..• a 5 Ole L ,./ li„ , , ,, ,,,, ,,,,,. - 11:21...r..--:,r...' „ 47, ,/, .-,• , , •r/ , 0/1[00...14 if:U=015=w .44...4445 , , , , " \, •,,,,,,, 46 , //,,Pt:•' 7t,' 4,/ ,„ / offry ' P • '''.n'uluozaltatuutas, ,,E,I., 5 „ ,,,,,„ k.• v.,- ..,,,,..., c, , „ / ,. 007. , ,,/,,,-/ ,, .... -J \ "\ s ' -s , ....• _ ,.; , . ,, .•, YR 5 • .. .4 SelkoP**' / eV *04, ', „ / // // 6 6 /' ../ • 67151,551. ,,,,?,-4, 1, C.4 :: •'':4:*:•. " .-:.4..: .:44:•:;...:;*;t ' * 4'••••#'W / ''3 '* .' '' , 4' / , 7/ / ' • ny,22.,,:aa,, ,,,i,, = ,-, ),• „ / ,'':',:‘,Iii:. --=-\• ' _ _ _—___„.„i/ 4 s , / ' /. // / A awm,447,°P.V. 7:7 t cO)) , - ',' ____*.t,4,4., .\"c4---..‹_:••• „_,,_,---- rr 4' ' - '' y Y . I/ ' ,.. \ ' unicittimmi / \..,,, i,....,--,-:',..' . ,-„ss.7 ' ,/,,,. min•=1:miumma 2 Namer=11166%1111 sms ..r.,.,,, ,,,-,. mar w ••••P eza Wita490,11111111FM. w K ••;, •40:0* 0 , ,/`" 4'. ,,,•/4 , / . / /,' ...V" ;., .•• • ,./v , / a, m C=3 al rai 42 NZ= / . .. , ,, /, Ez] IANAUCEZMIE. ‘, •:;:::_ (.7,, f,. , / .../ :.:•'l.;'.."' :'/%c,c•-------. I +.4;/ ./;`, Altl, '--'' -/ t"' // i„ /lief. - „, .. ' / EROSION CO.RROL GUS,MO kAP . ;.! / INTERPRET...PRES ••..‘R..,/ ' ///,;010 ''' 'iti.4kI. Y/ 1< t''7 / g.. 10130 IR 1.I..OM. . ,, __ '///Yr'* , , / 1.. / ..... 5 ./ ,,.., 410,,,,./ / , • " isi ,' /7//'lilt /''/'/ I' / = -........ ........ e. /-..... .....e 424.1. 0 20 PO 80 ....... 555E055E 430 311 co _ --i c) ..4) ) ) Summary Table of Mitigation Measures A. Earth, Soils and Geology Al. The applicant shall implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) during clearing, grading and site construction. A2. A deep foundation system for building construction shall be utilized;OR A3. Ground improvement measures shall be installed;OR A4. Containment Walls shall be provided to prevent lateral spreading;OR A5. Comparable engineering design. B. Surface Water Resources Bl. The project shall include the construction, operation and maintenance of water quality facilities designed according to the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual. B2. The residences and other structures shall be constructed with the lowest floor one foot above base flood elevation. B3. New vehicular bridges shall be built to span the floodway to avoid restriction of flows during regulatory flood events. AND provide a final engineering design consistent with one or a combination of B4,or B5,or B6: B4. Contain the 100-year floodplain within the proposed May Creek open space corridor of approximately 50-foot width on each side of the stream by enhancements to the existing stream channel, removal and replacement of bridge crossings, and/or placement of fill outside of the established stream buffer edge. The floodplain delineation and any necessary stream I buffer improvements shall be based on hydraulic modeling at the time of final engineering design. B5. Compensate for flood storage area lost by removing existing fill within the open space corridor and providing additional storage volume(i.e.a flood terrace excavated on either side of the stream). B6. Provide a wider 100 foot wide corridor to provide additional conveyance and flood storage to reduce channel scour and compensate for future increases in flood elevations because of sediment deposited in the stream channel. C. Groundwater Cl. Remove contaminated soil during Model Toxics Control Act cleanup of the site as outlined in the Independent Remedial Action Plan Uplands Areas dated June 16, 2000 and/or pursuant to an alternative plan that achieves applicable Model Toxics Control Act cleanup standards. C2. Evaluate the need for groundwater remediation after the soil remediation is complete and perform groundwater remediation as necessary to achieve applicable Model Toxics Control Act cleanup standards. D. Plants and Animals Dl. Relocate the osprey nest to an artificial structure erected in the project site vicinity. D2. Protect the existing vegetation buffer vegetation along May Creek from disturbance during construction by erecting barrier fencing and locating staging and access areas away from buffer areas. D3. Clear to completely remove existing invasive species in buffer areas and re-plant with native species consistent with preliminary landscaping mitigation plans approved as part of the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat approvals. D4. The width of proposed bridges shall be minimized to that necessary to accommodate vehicular and pedestrian traffic in order to optimize light penetration to those areas immediately adjacent to and under the bridge deck. Bridges shall also be designed with reasonable below-deck clearance adequate to pass debris and maximum flood volumes in accordance with current City of Renton and other applicable regulatory criteria for life safety. D5. Plant open space and buffer areas with native vegetation consistent with preliminary landscaping mitigation plans approved as part of the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat. , id EXHIBIT 16 Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Rat D6. The width of proposed bridges shall be minimized to that necessary to accommodate vehicular and pedestrian traffic with minimum below-deck clearance adequate for passage of small animals and/or mammals including,but not limited to deer, ducks and geese, muskrats,squirrels, mice and Now, frogs. D7. Use native plants in residential landscaping to minimize the use of fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides. D8. Limit wetland displacement to the extent practical by designing changes in the proposal to place development outside the wetland and buffer. D9. Compensate for loss of wetland by replacement on site. D10. Compensate for loss of buffer through buffer-width averaging and enhancement of the existing buffer vegetation. D11. If applicable, thena) Remove bulkheads where natural shoreline conditions can be re-established (where the lake is shallow,on public lands or in conjunction with greater building setbacks); OR b) Remove bulkheads and rely on vegetation stabilization (where the lake is shallow, on public lands or in conjunction with greater building setbacks);OR c)Provide plantings in rip-rap. D12. Reduce the elevation above OHWM of sheet pile walls and rip-rap to allow more natural shoreline plantings. D13. Preserve those pilings and other in-water structures that are at a distance from the near-shore habitat that is important for juvenile salmonids. D14. Provide 50 foot buffers on stream and lake shoreline to allow establishment of more extensive and complex communities of indigenous vegetation. D15. Provide 50 foot buffers on stream and lake shoreline to allow establishment of mature canopy from indigenous vegetation to provide summer shade and to intercept light and glare. D16. Provide 50 foot buffers on stream and lake shoreline to allow establishment of more extensive communities of indigenous vegetation to buffer disturbance and allow public access further from the shoreline. The first thirty-five (35) feet from the ordinary high water mark shall be vegetated with native plant or grass species as appropriate. The remaining fifteen (15) feet may be landscaped as appropriate to be utilized as a yard area. D17. Either: a) Prohibit docks and require the use of mooring buoys or floats at a distance from near- shore habitat; OR b): Reduce the number of docks through shared moorage, AND THEN; c) Reduce shading impacts by narrower docks or materials that allow light penetration. D18. Provide long-term management of shoreline vegetation by an entity other than residents such as the homeowners association or a similar entity. E. Transportation E1. Site access (railroad crossings) shall occur in the vicinity of existing at-grade crossing locations with roadway improvements reviewed and approved by the WUTC and BNSF. Pre-cast concrete crossings shall be utilized. E2. Provide active control for the two (2) railroad crossings designed with cantilever and gates and warning devices automatically activated by train approach as required by BNSF and the WUTC. Further, the City and future developer(s) shall work together with BNSF during the design of roadway improvements to determine any other appropriate railroad crossing solution(s). E3. A traffic circulation system to serve properties west of the railroad to reduce crossings shall be provided. E4. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Traffic Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each new average daily trip associated with the project. The fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. E5. The on-site roadway system shall be constructed per the details and specifications provided by the approved Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat as a public road system designed to public road section standards for residential access streets per the City of Renton Development Regulations. F. Hazardous Materials Fl. The applicant shall remove contaminated soil as outlined in the Independent Remedial Action Plan Uplands Areas dated June 16,2000 and/or pursuant to an alternative plan that achieves applicable Model Toxics Control Act cleanup standards. Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 11 F2. Th applicant shall evaluate the need for groundwater remediation after the soil remediation is complete and shall perform groundwater remediation as necessary to achieve applicable Model Toxics Control Act cleanup standards. F3. The applicant shall address contaminants from the proposed roadway through Quendall Terminals through appropriate removal, stabilization, or isolation, consistent with requirements of the Model Toxics Control Act. F4. A contamination and hazardous materials contingency plan shall be provided. G. Aesthetics G1. Apparent building bulk shall be reduced by design features, materials and color,including sloping roofs,roof detail such as gables and eave overhangs and building offsets. G2. If buildings are greater than three stories or 35 feet in height, relative building bulk may be reduced by screening through large vegetation. Additional setbacks for planting areas and a change in proposed plantings may be required. H. Light and Glare H1. Shielding for exterior lights in fixture selection shall be incorporated. H2. If buildings are greater than three stories or 35 feet In height,buildings shall be designed and sited to reduce or eliminate glass surfaces that might produce glare from sun reflection. I. Noise 11. Reasonable measures shall be taken during construction to minimize noise and vibration resulting from any necessary pile driving operations. Such measures shall include pre-drilling of the upper portions of driven piles for large structures or use of alternate technologies such as pin piles for smaller,residential supports. 12. Vibration,auger casting,or similar alternate construction methods shall be used where practical to limit noise related to pile support installation. 13. Noise barriers around stationary equipment such as compressors, welding machines, pumps, and similar equipment that would operate continuously and could contribute to steady background noise levels shall be provided. 14. At-grade rail crossings shall have underground conduit installed and other equipment installed as needed to facilitate future double-gating of public railroad crossings at the time of crossing construction. J. Historic and Cultural Resources J1. An interpretive display with images of the historic industrial use of the site reflecting the lumber economy and shipbuilding heritage of the area shall be provided by the developer.The design and location shall be reviewed and approved by Development Services prior to recording of the final plat. J2. In the event archaeological deposits are found during construction, work is to stop and the Washington State Archaeologist is to be contacted by the developer/contractor(s). K. Public Services K1. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee. The fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. K2. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee. The fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. K3. Public access to the shoreline of Lake Washington and along May Creek shall be provided and incorporated into the preliminary plat. The applicant shall work with City of Renton staff to determine the location and design of the public access.The system may include a soft surface trail along May Creek,sidewalks,and an open space tract adjacent to Lake Washington. Neuf Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 111 Nous, LEGAL DESCRIPTION All that portion of Government Lot 1, Section 32, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington and of second class shorelands adjoining lying westerly of Northern Pacific Railroad right of way; Except that portion, if any, of said shorelands lying north of the westerly production of the north line of said Government Lot 1. 'fir B4 - 29 T24N R5E W U2 - - - t / / X177 - - - i / z , - - CO: ic7-71411 N•.• - --_ � CDR f !- LAXV- -1_ _ ) ,i' - - 4? _ _-_-_-Atv Ailik 4,1 411111 ei ii,___\ 1_ 1 is A a , NM 11111111111111111 INE Nib - - - -yr i numic. no- ,,, ... -' ' 1aiái -- Kr 4j . \. • / F�ii�iii iI R 8 C•1 //n,fi11 EINEM - EM� s_` Q) ilk. d�00t �3 �� y1� W -r ti� INnI a- iu klija:. • a - N z • iir�i III moi'� �N NE 36t8 „ow% in";timmennum _..impri 11. oc, . _, col r ..�; :::: w R:'ll.:�l oum f - •" '1 I IIJna''E'' �� !i1IE�' i .) i N AM gRRR111111�nianum mow .. 1 pRcq VAIl , ..L8 am � "midi I r'SMMEni • -81IMMIGININ IIIIIIMUIfird �'��rietr�. R • - I - : 11.1-kormi ith ,._ Ci.CLE R ,1 Ilia= IFP+$ I I I (� I R : 0 May Creek ral SIII I I °l�l It 1 i0 MN T in R--: VIMIIlIlPRIIIIIIIII t ] M : n/4. �`�,► Chi 1,1i11r11'ilagInCCEIn gig jICN Una 1 -8 IU1f111:!Illnnl Uill ' �\ *e7.11 - No nun�l(fi1�i innuz i1 :. ERA monan1 �- .0., fisL_8 rI1111111111malli 'RW tar I 11.1.S....LeIr D4 - 5 T23N R5E W 1/2 o~�Y 0 -Al.-- 9 ° 47° C4 ZONING -xenon c:t,�.�,+� ��°°° YB/N TEC cAL SERVICES �,N� �+ li 32 T24N R5E W 1/2 EXHIBIT 15 5432 I CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: 7• C- SUBMITTING DATA: FOR AGENDA OF: March 21, 2005 Dept/Div/Board.. Legal Staff Contact.. Lawrence J. Warren AGENDA STATUS: Consent X SUBJECT: Garbage Ordinance Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Ordinance Resolution Old Business.... EXHIBIT(S): Draft Garbage Ordinance New Business.... Study Session... Other RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPROVALS: Legal Dept X Refer to Utilities Committee Finance Dept.... Other FISCAL IMPACT: Expenditure Required... None Transfer/Amendment.. Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated... SUMMARY OF ACTION: The current Garbage Ordinance contains several antiquated definitions and two key definitions that were circular. There was an ambiguity about the universal application of the Garbage Ordinance. The penalties section of the ordinance were not clear. The proposed ordinance clarifies and adds definitions, makes garbage collection mandatory with certain limited exceptions , adds and clarifies violations to the Garbage Ordinance and criminalizes violations. 1 The amendments to the Garbage Ordinance are the second major step in revamping city ordinances as part of the stepped up code enforcement and nuisance abatement effort. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The committee recommend to the full Council that the amended Garbage Ordinance be adopted. .Agendadoc.T10.42:38 DRAFT 9 3/15/2005 9:08 AM *`"° Revisions by Linda Knight in Red, underlined (new) /strikethceugh(deleted) Revisions by City Attorney in Green and Brown, underlined (new) /strikeeugh (deleted) Revisions by Mark Barber in Blue and Pink underlined (new)/stfiletlre (deleted) CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 8-1, GARBAGE, OF TITLE VIII (HEALTH AND SANITATION) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON" BY REVISING DEFINITIONS, UNLAWFUL ACTS, AND PENALTIES, AND REVISING THE PROCEDURES FOR HANDLING THE ACCUMULATION, STORAGE, COLLECTION, AND DISPOSAL OF GARBAGE, SOLID WASTE, RECYCLABLES, AND YARD WASTE, AND REVISING THE DECLARATION OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 8-1. err THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Chapter 8-1, Garbage, of Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows: CHAPTER 1 GARBAGE SECTION: 8-1-1: Purpose Intent And Scope 8-1-2: Definitions 8-1-3: Garbage, Recyclables, and Solid Waste Collections 8-1-4: Unlawful Storage, Deposit, Disposal, Scavenging, and Hauling of Solid Waste ` . . e _ .. . •. , , • - . . • . 8-1-5: Supervision 8 1 6: Restrictions And Anti Scavenging 8-146: Violations of this Chapter Declared a Public Nuisance lose 8-1-7: Violations of this Chapter and Penalties . • - . . - . . - ' 1 ORDINANCE NO. 8-1-8: Schedule of Collection :' '•_ . • : - •: • ; '- • . - : - • •• 8-1-9: Billings and Collections; Lien and Enforcement Rates for Service) NIS 8-1-10: Rates for Services Adoption by Reference 8-1-11: Adoption by Reference • . . •. • - . . - . • : ' 8-1-12: Severability : • : • - . . - . • : ' - .- 8-1-1 INDENT AND SCOPE: PURPOSE: The maintenance of health. sanitation and public welfare require and ilt is the intention purpose of this Chapter to further the maintenance of health. sanitation, safety and public welfare require and by makeing the collection, disposal and removal of garbage solid waste within the City compulsory and universal. and-tThe provisions of this Chapter shall be liberally construed for the accomplishment of that purpose. Collection of recyclables and yard waste shall be voluntary. 8-1-2 DEFINITIONS: ALLEY: A Ppublic or private way giving access to the rear of lots or buildings. ANCILLARY DISPOSAL PROVIDER: A licensed person or business that offers delivery, maintenance or clean-up services that, by their nature, include a disposal function. Ancillary disposal providers must provide a legitimate service other than garbage collection and disposal services equivalent to those provided by a City contracted collection contractor. Examples of ancillary disposal providers include, but are not limited to licensed businesses that deliver new appliances, carpets or other furnishings ,,a and remove and dispose of the replaced item; licensed contractors that self-haul construction, demolition and land clearing waste that they produce during the course of their regular business activities; and licensed clean-up services that include a container or truck loading function in addition to hauling and disposal. ASHES: The solid residue left over when combustible material is burned or is oxidized by chemical means including but not limited to the residue from coal, wood and any other combustible materials or fuels. BULKY WASTE: Large items of solid waste, including but not limited to items such as furniture; large household appliances, including but not limited to refrigerators, freezers, ovens, ranges, stoves, dishwashers, wafer heaters, washing machines, or clothes dryers; junk vehicles, vehicle hulks or any parts thereof as defined in RMC 6-1-1, as now worded or hereafter amended; and any other oversized solid wastes which would typically not fit into or be permitted for collection as garbage in garbage cans. CDL: Solid waste generated from construction, demolition and land clearing. CLINKER: A brick that has burned too much in a kiln or stony matter fused together by combustion or chemical reaction. COLLECTION CONTRACTOR: That entity holding a valid current contract with the City to collect and dispose of municipal solid waste and/or collect, process and market recyclable and/or yard waste materials. 2 • ORDINANCE NO. COLLECTION POINT: In multi-family residences, commercial, industrial and other nonresidential developments, the exterior location designated for garbage and recyclables collection by the City's contractor or other authorized haulers. COMMERCIAL CUSTOMER: •• • • . . - • . ' . --• -.'•- • - . • •• . . . ongoing basis.Any business, institution, industrial site or multi-family residence within theCit . • . .. : -. , , , : . •: , -, : .. .. • . : •• : • - :.,,;: COMPOST: A process of creating humus for mulch to fertilize and condition land by combining a mixture consisting of decaying or decayed organic matter in a pile or receptacle. Such organic matter includes, but is not limited to grass clippings, plant material, leaves, pine needles, wood chips, wood ashes, kitchen refuse including melon rinds, potato peelings, carrot peelings, tea bags, apple peelings and cores, banana peels, egg shells, or other vegetable or fruit matter. CURBSIDE: On the homeowner's property, within ten feet (10') of the public street without blocking sidewalks, driveways or on-street parking. For households currently receiving garbage pickup in an alley accessible by collection vehicles, "curbside" can be considered to be in the current alley location and within ten feet(10') of the edge of the alley. If extraordinary circumstances preclude such a location, curbside shall be considered a placement suitable to the resident and convenient to the collection contractor's equipment and approved by the City. DETACHABLE CONTAINER: A watertight, all metal container, compatible with the collection contractor's equipment, not less than one cubic yard nor greater than eight cubic yards in capacity and equipped with a tight-fitting cover. The contents of Ddetachable Gcontainers are typically unloaded into a collection vehicle at the customer's site. DROP-BOX CONTAINER: An all-metal container with ten cubic yard or more capacity that is loaded onto a collection contractor's vehicle, transported to a dDisposal sSite, emptied and transported back to the customer's site. DUPLEX: A residence containing two (2) dwelling units. Each dwelling unit will be charged the single-family residential rate for collection. ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLD: A. Multi-Family Program: A residence containing three (3) or more dwelling units and receiving commercial garbage pickup services. B. Residential Curbside Program: A residence containing not more than two (2) dwelling units and in which each unit receives individual garbage collection services. EXTRA GARBAGE UNIT: A garbage unit in addition to the number of garbage cans or garbage units to which the customer has subscribed. I GARBAGE: This term shall be • : • - : . ' • •- . . -, included within the definition of solid waste but shall not include all solid waste. but Garbage shall exclude bulky waste, special waste, hazardous waste, construction, demolition, and land clearing waste,junk vehicles, vehicle hulks or parts thereof as defined in RMC 6-1-1, as now No' worded or hereafter amended, and recyclable materials and yard waste, sewage, sludge or 3 ORDINANCE NO. septage. . .. • . . . . - -• . .. : . - , , . . Nisio and small dead animals weighing not over fifteen (15) pounds, but shall exclude all waste and special or hazardous wastes. GARBAGE CAN: A City approved container fabricated of material of similar size and weight to a container that is a watertight galvanized sheet metal,—or plastic container not exceeding four (4) cubic feet or thirty two (32) gallons in capacity, weighing not over fifteen(15)pounds when empty or sixty-five (65) pounds when full;; fitted with two (2) sturdy handles, one on each side, and a tight cover equipped with a handle; such can to shall be rodent and insect-proof and to be kept in a sanitary condition at all times. GARBAGE CART: A City approved, collection container cGontractor owned and provided by the contractor container for the purpose of collecting garbage. GARBAGE DISPOSAL SITE OR DISPOSAL SITE: The terms "garbage disposal site" and "disposal site" shall mean tThe areas owned, leased, or controlled by the King County Solid Waste Division, '•` : . • • . - , : •, for the disposal of garbage or solid waste, or such other site as may be approved by the City and any other governmental agency having jurisdiction thereover. GARBAGE UNIT: Secure and tight bundles, none of which shall exceed three feet (3') in the longest dimension, and shall not exceed sixty five (65)pounds in weight or such "garbage unit" may be packed in small discarded boxes, barrels or bags, or in securely tight cartons or other receptacles reasonably easy to be handled and loaded by one person onto a collection contractor's vehicle. A garbage can may be a garbage unit. HAZARDOUS WASTE: Any wastes included in the State of Washington, Department of Ecology Dangerous Waste Regulations, Chapter 173-303 WAC. . 0 • • „�_ . . . .. collection services in the City generating in excess of one hundred seventy five (175) tons INDUSTRIAL WASTE: Includes waste generated as a by product of manufacturing .1:- . , . . . ' •- : .. . , . . ... :. .. . , . • ' 'manufacturing process and not otherwise included in the definitions of"garbage", "hazardous" or "special wastes” hereinabove. MINI-CAN: A City-approved A container that is a watertight galvanized sheet-metal or plastic container not exceeding ten (10) gallons in capacity or twenty-five (25) pounds in weight when full, fitted with a tight cover equipped with a handle. MINIMUM SERVICE LEVEL: A single-family residential, multifamily residential or commercial service at a 10-gallon garbage can rate, or at adequate service as determined by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator. administrator, The average weekly size and frequency of garbage service for a particular customer shall be as ; 4 • ORDINANCE NO. determined by the Solid Waste Coordinator as the adequate service necessary to meet Niro' health standards of the Seattle-King County Health Department. (-adequate service MODERATE RISK WASTE: Any waste that exhibits any of the properties of dangerous waste but is exempt from regulation under RCW 70.102 solely because the waste is generated in quantities below the threshold for regulation and any household wastes that are generated from the disposal of substances identified by the department as hazardous household substances. MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE: A structure containing three (3) or more dwelling units. All multi-family residences will shall be considered a commercial customer for charging of garbage rates. charged the commercial garbage rate. ,. 1. • e . - , , - • • bage. PERSON: Every person, firm, partnership, business, association, institution or corporation in the City accumulating garbage refuse requiring disposal. The term shall also mean the occupant and/or the owner of the premises for which service herein mentioned is rendered. • ' ' - ! ' 'LANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATOR: The official of the City holding that office, or the designated representative. RECYCLABLES: Newspaper, uncoated mixed paper, aluminum, glass and metal, food and beverage containers, polyethylene terepthalate (PET#1)plastic bottles, high density polyethylene (HDPE #2) plastic bottles, and such other materials that the City and collection contractor determine to be recyclable. RECYCLING BINS: A • . . : • : • . : container provided by the City of collection contractor for the purpose of collecting recyclables. RECYCLING CART: A •• . • : • . : 32, 65, or 90 gallon wheeled container with a tight-fitting lid, provided by a City or collection contractor. for the purpose of collecting recyclables. : •• • . • . . RECYCLABLES DEPOSIT AREA: In multi-family residences, commercial, industrial and other nonresidential developments, the area(s) where recyclables will be stored. RESIDENCE: A building or portion thereof containing not more than two (2) dwelling units. RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER: Those customers residing in single-family units and duplexes. , . • : • : - . : •. • . • . ' • vhich each and • - . - . . : : : . •, . • ; . y-. . . -` - Zily unit. SINGLE-FAMILY UNITRESIDENCE: A residence containing not more than two dwelling units. Duplexes are considered Single-Family Residences. Residences located •• . . : : . - . - , . • .. - . • :, . . • • : service vehicles • . : • . . • . - • - . • - • • • •. .. - . . :jacent to a public SOLID WASTE: All putrescible and nonputrescible solid and semi-solid wastes 16111' I including, but not limited to;garbage, rubbish, swill, refuse, trash, debris, ashes, clinkers, 5 ORDINANCE NO. bulky waste, industrial-wastes, construction, demolition and land clearing waste, . , ' . . : • -. , abai, -junk vehicles, vehicle hulks or parts .t thereof as defined in RMC 6-1-i" as now worded or hereafter amended, and recyclable materials and yard waste, but excluding special or hazardous waste, sewage, sludge or septage. SOLID WASTE HANDLING: The management, storage, collection, transportation, treatment, utilization, processing and final disposal of solid wastes, including the recovery and recycling of materials from solid wastes,the recovery of energy sources from solid wastes or the conversion of the energy in solid wastes to more useful forms or combinations thereof, and the ownership or operation of a transfer station. SOLID WASTE UTILITY: That enterprise fund of the City managing the financial and administrative responsibilities for solid waste collection and disposal. SOLID WASTE UTILITY COORDINATOR: The official of the City holding that office, or the designated representative. SPECIAL WASTE: A. Chemical waste from a laboratory. (This is limited to discarded containers of laboratory chemicals, lab equipment, lab clothing, debris from lab spills or cleanup and floor sweeping.) B. Articles, equipment and clothing containing or contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's). (Examples are: PCB capacitors or transformers, gloves or aprons from draining operations, empty drams that formerly held PCB's, etc.) C. "Empty" containers of waste commercial products or chemicals. (This applies to a portable container which has been emptied, but which may hold residuals of the product or chemical. Examples of containers are: portable tanks, drums, barrels, cans, bags, liners, etc. A container shall be determined "empty" according to the criteria specified at 40 C.F.R. 261.7.) D. Asbestos containing waste from building demolition or cleaning. (This applies to asbestos-bearing waste insulation materials, such as wallboard, wall spray coverings, pipe insulation, flooring tiles, siding, etc.) E. Commercial products or chemicals, off-specification, outdated, contaminated or banned. (This also includes products voluntarily removed from the marketplace by a manufacturer or distributor in response to allegations of adverse health effects associated with product use.) F. Residue and debris from cleanup of spills or releases of a single chemical substance or commercial product, or a single waste which would otherwise qualify as a miscellaneous special waste. G. Medical or infectious by-product waste from a medical or dental practitioner, individual(sj, hospital, nursing home, medical testing laboratory, mortuary, taxidermist, veterinarian, veterinary hospital or animal testing laboratory, including but not limited to discarded needles or other "sharps."' H. Animal waste and parts from slaughterhouses or rendering plants. I. Pumpings from septic tanks used exclusively by dwelling units. (Single-family units, duplexes, apartment buildings, hotels or motels.) 6 ORDINANCE NO. J. Sludge from a publicly owned sewage treatment plant serving primarily domestic Naa' users (i.e., with no substantial industrial or chemical influent). K. Grease trap wastes from restaurants or cafeterias not located at industrial facilities. L. Washwater wastes from commercial car washes. (Note: this does not include facilities used for washing the exterior of bulk chemical or waste tank trucks, or for washing out the interior of any truck.) M. Washwater wastes from commercial laundries or laundromats. N. Chemical containing equipment removed from service. (Example: cathode ray tubes, batteries, fluorescent light tubes, compact fluorescent lights, computer monitors, televisions, etc.) O. Waste produced from the demolition or dismantling of industrial process equipment or facilities contaminated with chemicals from the process. P. Closed cartridge filters from dry-cleaning establishments. (Such filters being used to filter used dry-cleaning fluids or solids.) STREET: A public or private way, other than "alleys", used for public travel. SUNKEN CAN: Garbage cans which are in a sunken covered receptacle specifically designed to contain garbage cans and where the top of the garbage can is approximately at ground level. WAS fE STREAM: The collection and disposal of solid waste and recyclable materials, excluding bulky waste, special waste, hazardous waste, construction, demolition and land clearing waste. and junk vehicles, vehicle hulks or parts thereof as defined in RMC 6-1-1, as now worded or hereafter amended, sewage, sludge or septage. Ntoor YARD WASTES: Includes leaves, grass, pruning and clippings of woody as well as fleshy plants. Materials larger than two inches (2") in diameter and four feet (4') in length shall not be considered yard waste. Christmas trees will be eligible for collection as yard waste; provided;that they have been cut into lengths of 4 feet or less and bundled, before being placed for collection. by the resident. YARD WASTE CART: A City approved container at curbside or other approved point for the purpose of collecting yard wastes. 8-1-3 GARBAGE, RECYCLABLES, AND SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS: A. Accumulation of Waste: All persons accumulating solid waw garbage in the City shall place and accumulate the same in garbage cans, garbage units or detachable containers. Recyclables may also be accumulated in recycling bins or recycling carts, and yard waste may also be accumulated in yard waste carts. B.A Collection of Garbage Required: Garbage: All garbage within the City shall be collected by the City's collection contractor. Solid Waste Collection Required: Solid e'er'" waste Garbage collection shall be made by collection contractors as authorized by the 7 ORDINANCE NO. City. All persons and properties within the City shall use the solkl-wastegarbage 04 collection system and service of the utility and collection contractor(s) of the Cin. under '" C. Placement and Removal of Garbage Cans, Recycling Bins and Yard Waste Carts: Any single family residence accumulating garbage, recyclables, and yard waste shall place their materials for collection at the curbside no earlier than 24 hours prior to their collection day. Likewise, all garbage cans, recycling bins and yard waste carts must be removed from the curbside within 24 hours of being collected. D. Minimum Service Level: All persons and occupied property shall be subject to and responsible for the minimum service level level of service and associated charges for service for residential and commercial garbage collection soli-waste as applicable, whether or not such persons use the service. The Solid Waste Coordinator may, upon a showing that a person or property produces no solid-waste garbage and recyclable materials, waive the minimum service level level of service requirements of this section. E.11 Collection of Residential and Multi-Family Recyclables: Any person qty may collect residential and multi-family recyclables. However, once recyclables are placed at the curbside or other approved point of collection, then residential and multi-family recyclables may be collected only by the City's collection contractor. ANS F.G Collection of Residential Yard Waste: Any party person may collect residential yard waste. However, once residential yard waste is placed at the curbside or other approved point of collection, then residential yard waste may be collected only by the City's collection contractor. G. Weight of Cans and Collection Access: No garbage can when filled shall weigh more than sixty-five (65) pounds and-but shall be so packed that the contents thereof will dump out readily when it is inverted. For residential customers, all garbage cans, recycling bins and yard waste carts shall be placed at curbside of the alley, street or road at which collection trucks are to be loaded. A residence located in an area that does not allow safe access, turn-around, or clearance for service vehicles or on a private drive will be provided service if materials are set out adjacent to a public street or private road or a • location agreed to by the Solid Waste Coordinator and the City's collection contractor. H. Special Pickup Services: Special pickup services will be provided when authorized 1 by the City, to those single-family units-residences and duplexes where there are handicapped or elderly people who cannot move their garbage cans, recycling bins, or yard waste carts to the curb. Single-family units and duplexes which are geographically located so as to make moving containers to the curb an unreasonable physical hardship must apply to the City for the special collection service and submit documentation to justify their application. Residences which qualify for this service will be determined by 8 • ORDINANCE NO. I the Solid Waste Utility-Coordinator based upon submitted documentation. Special pickup "0'"° services shall be from a convenient location, but such location shall be approved by both the City and the contractor. I. Number of Cans; Condition: Sufficient garbage cans must be provided for the collection of all garbage as defined in this Chapter. All garbage cans, detachable containers, recycling bins or yard waste carts shall be kept tightly covered and in good and sanitary condition for garbage and recyclables storage and handling, and garbage cans, detachable containers, recycling bins, or yard waste carts which leak or have jagged edges or holes shall not be used. The Solid Waste Utility Coordinator, independently or at the request of the City's collection contractor, shall determine whether or not the I condition of any garbage can, detachable container, drop box, recycling bin, or yard waste cart is satisfactory for use. J. Commercial and Industrial: Subject to the approval of the City, agreement will be reached between the City's collection contractor and commercial and industrial customers concerning security, location of detachable containers, frequency of removal., and receipts for removal. K. Requirements for Garbage, Solid Waste and Recyclables Deposit Areas and Collection Point shall be designed and located as required by RMC 4-4-090 and this Chapter. . • . . . . . , , 111. sow L. Solid Waste Disposal System Designation: The County disposal system is designated for the disposal of all solid waste, including moderate risk waste generated and/or collected within the corporate limits of the City, and the County is authorized to designate disposal sites for the disposal of all solid waste, including moderate risk waste generated or collected within the corporate limits of the City, except for solid waste that is eliminated through waste reduction and/or waste recycling activities consistent with the County's Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. No solid waste generated or collected within the City shall be diverted from the designated disposal sites without County approval. 1. The following facilities, which are owned and operated by vendors with which the County has contracts for construction, demolition and land clearing waste (hereinafter referred to as "CDL waste") handling or alternative facilities as the County may designate are hereby designated as the CDL receiving facilities for all nonrecyclable CDL waste generated within the corporate limits of the City. Rabanco Disposal Company Facilities: a. Rabanco Recycling and Waste Reduction Center, 2733 Third Avenue South, Seattle. b. Regional Disposal Company Black River Transfer and Recycling Facility, Monster Road, Renton. N"' c. Such other facilities as hereafter may be designated by the County. 9 ORDINANCE NO. -,'• •'• : - •• :_ •• , aAll generators, handlers and collectors of CDL Waste shall deliver or ensure delivery of all nonrecyclable CDL waste generated within the corporate limits of the City to a designated CDL receiving facility or to a back- up facility designated by the County. 3. Recyclable CDL waste may be transported to any CDL recycling facility or to a recycling market within or outside of the City provided it contains CDL waste in amounts not exceeding ten percent (10%) of total weight per load. 4. Mixed CDL waste shall be taken only to a designated CDL receiving facility, back-up facility or CDL recycling facility located in the County to the extent permitted by applicable law; provided, that if mixed CDL waste is taken to a CDL receiving facility, all residual CDL waste must be taken to a designated CDL receiving facility or back-up facility designated by the County. M. Restrictions: Garbage shall be collected and hauled through the streets of the City only by the City's collection contractor or a person authorized to collect and haul garbage under RCW 35.13.280 (Franchise) or holding a valid permit from the Utilities and Transportation Commission, except that aA residentperson or business within the Cite_ may occasionally self-haul the occasional garbage and recyclables solid waste. and recvclable materials from t' -his or her specific property to an approved collection or disposal site. "Occasionally" shall not mean on a regular or scheduled basis, or for the purpose of avoiding paying an increased rate for service under RMC 8-1-10 for regular collection service. A minimum level of service shall be charged for each customer within the City without regard to any self-hauling of garbage and recyclables, as provided in ,r„, RMC 8-1-3.D. if the minimum level of service for such is paid for by the customer. . It shall be unlawful for anyone, except the following, to haul garbage through the streets in the City: 1. The City's collection contractor. 2. Anyone authorized to collect and haul garbage under RCW 35.13.284 • - - - waste and reeve _ cl site if the minimum level of service for such is t il-for-z.h-4he-customer. "Occasional.' shall not • - • _ _ :, - - : • - an increased - . • . • ' :. Self haul: Nothing of service for such is paid for by the customer. 8-1-4 UNLAWFUL STORAGE, DEPOSIT, DISPOSAL, SCAVENGING, AND HAULING OF SOLID WASTE: DEPOSIT OF GARBAGE, SOLID WASTE, RECYCLABLES, AND YARD WASTE: A. Accumulation of Waste: All persons accumulating solid waste in the City shall 10 ORDINANCE NO. . A. Unlawful Hauling of Garbage and Recyclables: It shall be unlawful for any person other than the City's collection contractor, or any other person these-duly-authorized by the City to collect, haul, dump or dump dispose of garbage and recyclables sol through the streets of within the City or-to-dump waste, except as provided in RMC 8-1-3.M. B. Unlawful Hauling of Special or Hazardous Waste: It shall be unlawful for any person other than the City's collection contractor or any other person authorized by the I City, state or county to collect, haul, dump or dump dispose of special or hazardous waste within the City. BC. Unlawful Storage of Garbage and Recyclables: It shall be unlawful for any person buildings to deposit, throw, dump, store, maintain, retain. keep or place garbage, solid waste, recyclables or yard waste;on private or public real property in the City, except :.m.ins.I a fl•a %Jt .: ': .. .� u••:•1•111Z4/IMP U .-.. y?!! • : • : : • : : : . • : : • •• • , in a garbage can or garbage-unit, recycling bin or yard waste cart except for the purpose of storing such garbage, solid waste, recyclables or yard waste until the next regular collection date by the City's collection contractor or any other person authorized by the City to collect garbage or recyclables. This subsection shall not apply to yard waste in compost piles or receptacles so long as they are properly maintained free of all vectors and any odors traveling off-premises. I Further, this subsection shall not apply to any lensed business licensed to collect and store garbage and recyclables when done in connection with and in an area zoned for the collection or disposal of garbage or recyclables. Likewise, it will not be a violation of this public buildings to store recyclables in recycling bins or yard waste in yard waste carts . . - . . -. . . ierizcd k—ful-a nuisance and is prohibited. in accordance tt ith RMC 1 3 I as now \t orded or hereafter amended, and may be abated in accordance tt ith RNIC __carded of hereafter amended. GD. Unlawful Deposit of Garbage or Recyclables: :12ena(tie:r It shall be unlawful to deposit, throw, dump, dispose or place any garbage, solid waste, recyclables, or yard waste in any lane, alley, street, road or other public way or place in the City o€Renton, except for the purpose of depositing such garbage, recyclables or yard waste at curbside in an approved container or containers for the next regular collection by the City's collection contractor or any other person authorized by the City to collect garbage or recyclables. It shall also be unlawful to deposit, throw, dump or place any garbage, 11 ORDINANCE NO. recyclables or yard waste on private property owned by another person in the City, 44.0 without the consent of the landowner or person in possession or control of the real property. . . . . . . • .,• _ . . w'las,he..iat:.... w ewesy_..�ay...'Ski'afri.r .a.s Cu.eina .,0.i..i . . -. - all 0.�,2.n.. y . • • • • • •• , solid waste, ree\clahles or yard aste is herb declared a public nuisance in accordance \\ith RMC 1 3 3 as now worded or hereafter amended. accord with Section 1 3 2. I E. Unlawful Storage of Bulky Waste: It shall be unlawful for any person in the City to store, maintain, keep, retain, dump or accumulate bulky waste on private real property in the City of-Renton, except for any licensed ancillary disposal provider or licensed business in connection with bulky waste collection or disposal in an area zoned for the collection or disposal of bulky waste. F. Unlawful Deposit of Bulky Waste: It shall be unlawful to deposit, throw, dump or place any bulky waste in any lane, alley, street, road or other public way or place in the 4.0 City, except for bulky waste collection by the City's collection contractor or any other person authorized by the City to collect bulky waste or a licensed ancillary disposal provider pursuant to a City permit. It shall also be unlawful to deposit, throw, dump or place any bulky waste on private Or-pub-lie real property owned by another person in the City, without the consent of the landowner or person in possession or control of the real property. I G. Unlawful Storage or Deposit of Special or Hazardous Waste: It shall be unlawful for any person in the City to store, maintain, keep, deposit, retain, dump or accumulate special or hazardous waste on private or public real property in the City. Any special or hazardous waste generated in the City shall be collected and disposed of in accordance with all federal, state, county, and local statutes, ordinances. rules and regulations, by'a solid waste collection contractor licensed for such collection and disposal and stored and disposed of and in an area zoned for the collection storage or disposal of special or hazardous waste. H. Unlawful Deposit or Disposal into the Waste Stream of Special or Hazardous Waste: It shall be unlawful to deposit, throw, dump or place any special or hazardous waste into the waste stream in garbage cans or units, recycling bins or yard waste carts ; for regular garbage or recyclables collection, or to dispose of special or hazardous waste 12 ORDINANCE NO. in a transfer station, recycling station or otherwise in the City, except in accordance with *me federal, state or county statutes or ordinances and in the manner approved by the Seattle ••_ - . • D - : •• -• state Department of Ecology or its successor, Or-state law, and by a person licensed by law for collection, transfer and disposal of special or hazardous wastes. I. Unlawful Deposit or Storage of CDL: It shall be unlawful to deposit, throw, dump, place or store any CDL on private or public real property in the City o€-Renton, except for any licensed ancillary disposal provider or business in connection with CDL collection or disposal at a facility zoned for and designated for receiving disposal of CDL. J. Unlawful Use of Garbage Cans or Units, Dumpsters, RecyclingBins or Yard Waste Carts: It shall be unlawful to place, deposit or throw garbage, recyclables or yard waste in the garbage can or unit, detachable container, dumpster, recycling bin or yard waste cart that is owned, leased or rented by another person, without the consent of the person paying for the collection service. K. Unlawful Placement and Removal of Garbage Cans, Recycling_Bins and Yard Waste Carts: It shall be unlawful for a person residing in a single family residence to place garbage, recyclables, or yard waste at the curbside for collection by the City's collection contractor, more than 24 hours prior to the regular collection date for his or her single family residence. It shall also be unlawful for a person residing in a single family residence to leave garbage cans, recycling bins or yard waste carts at the curbside more than 24 hours after collection by the City's collection contractor. Further, it shall be unlawful for a person residing in a single family residence to maintain, place or store any garbage cans, recycling bins or yard waste carts at a location other than adjacent to the residential structure or within a fully enclosed building or garage. D. Weight of Cans: No garbage can when filled shall weigh more than sixty_ five (65) inverted. For residential customers, all garbage . • , - • . - :'• . Id yard waste carts shall be placed at curbside of the alley, street or road at which collection trucks are to be loaded: E. Special Pickup Services: Special pickup services will be provided when authorized I ' - • • • . •• . . • . : : . • , t—are yard waste carts to the curb. Single family units and duplexes which are geographically • • : • . .. : • • • - : . • . . . • . %h` ca hardship • ' . . . -. _ be de termined by • - . : _ ' ' . . : - . • :: • . : -.• . - • • ion. Special pickup 4400, 13 ORDINANCE NO. .4404 the City and the contractor. F. Placement and Removal of Garbage Cans, Recycling Bins and Recycling Carts: • _. • • . . . • • -removed from the curbside within 24 hours of being collected. ' - ': -• . Contractor. PL. Unlawful Placement and Removal of Garbage Cans, Recycling Bins and Yard Waste Carts in Business Areas: It shall be unlawful for A-any person accumulating garbage, recyclables, and yard waste in the Center Downtown Zone, or downtown Of Center Neighborhood Zone or Center Suburban Zone, as set forth in RMC 4-2-020, . • . •. • . . '• . -. whose location requires the placing of garbage cans or units, recycling bins or yard waste carts :• :• • •• - on sidewalks or alleys for collection, to place garbage cans or units, recycling bins or yard waste carts on sidewalks or alleys earlier than 5:00 p.m. It shall also be unlawful for any person who owns, leases or rents any garbage can or unit, recycling bins or yard waste carts in the zones referenced above to fail to remove their garbage, recycling and yard waste containers femove : . , . , - ••_ .•• . : . -- from sidewalks or alleys by 9:30 a.m. following collection of the garbage, recyclables or yard waste, except that if collection has not occurred by the City's collection contractor, then the garbage cans or units, recycling bins or yard waste carts shall be immediately removed following collection. ••• •- • -•. - -- - - - • •_ • • • •• - • • -•• • if the cans have M. Unlawful Deposit of Burning Material, Hot Ashes or Hot Clinkers for Collection: It shall be unlawful to deposit, throw, dump, or place burning material, incendiary hot ashes, hot clinkers or any other material or solid waste sufficiently hot to create • combustion when the same come in contact with any garbage, into any garbage can or unit, recycling bin or yard waste cart for collection by the City's collection contractor. N. Unlawful Scavenging: Once any garbage, recyclables or yard waste have been set out on the curbside for collection, or at such other location as authorized by the City, ownership of the garbage, recyclables and yard waste passes to the City's collection Ned contractor. It shall be unlawful for any person, other than the City's collection contractor, 14 • ORDINANCE NO. to remove or collect any garbage, recyclables, or yard waste once it has been set out on the curbside or other approved location for collection. I HI. Number of Cans; Condition: Sufficient garbage cans must be provided for the . • . . . • . dro I box or recycling cart is satisfactory for use. M. Unlawful Disposal of Sp ,• •_ : a+.1-iotts Di-stase Refuse: The removal of tv earing apparel, bedding or other refuse from homes or other-places where highly infectious or contagious diseases have prevailed shall be performed utter the super`inion and direction of the City Health Officer. Such refuse shall not be placed in containers-for regular collections. JK. Commercial and Industrial: Subject to the approval of the City, agreement will be • . . • . ' . - •. . • . • tdustrial customers concerning security, location of detachable containers, frequency of removal, and receipts for removal. KL. Requirements for Refuse and Recyclables Deposit Areas and Collection Points: O. . , , P. Any unlawful deposit of garbage, solid waste, recyclables or yard waste is thereby declared a public nuisance in accordance with RMC 1 3 4 as now worded or hereafter amended. • . •-- • . �p�i.a..:.:�it•+:�w�.:a7iamss n.ii:'.�:i a.:...��i.• accord with Section 1 3 2. Q. Any unlawful disposal of special or hazardous waste is hereby declared to be a - • - witty RMC 1 3 I as now worded or Itefeafter antendech-aftEl may be abated in accordance with RMC 13 3 as now worded or hereafter amended. 8-1-5 SUPERVISION: The Public Works DirectorPlanning/Building/Public Works Administrator of the City, or the DifecterAdministrator's duly authorized representative, is hereby authorized and directed to supervise the collection and disposal of all garbage, recyclables, and yard waste as herein defined. 14161110 15 ORDINANCE NO. 8-1-6 VIOLATIONS OF THIS CHAPTER DECLARED A PUBLIC NUISANCE: Any person violating any Section or part of this Chapter shall be deemed to have created a public nuisance as defined in RMC 1-3-4, as now worded or hereafter amended, and such public nuisance may be abated in accordance with RMC 1-3-3, as now worded or hereafter amended. Any person creating a public nuisance in violation of this Chapter shall be responsible for removing any unlawful solid waste from the waste stream, including any and all cleanup costs, damages, costs of suit, including attorney's fees and costs for experts incurred to enjoin such violation or removal of the unlawful solid waste from the waste stream, in addition to any remedies allowed pursuant to RMC 1-3-3, as now worded or hereafter amended. 8-1-7 VIOLATIONS OF THIS CHAPTER AND PENALTIES: A person violating any of the provisions of this Chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Penalties for violations of any of the provisions of this Chapter shall be in accord with RMC 1-3-1, as now worded or hereafter amended. RESTRICTIONS AND ANTI SCAVENGING: through the streets in the City: , 111.0 1. The City's collection contractor. 2. Anyone authorized to collect and haul garbage under RCW 35.13.280 3. A reside, siness x‘ithin the Cite ma\ self haul the occasional solid - _ . minimum level of se-ry-icenr such is paid tar---the customer. "Occasional" shall not •a :. 4r for the purpose of a\oidin, paving. an increased rate for service under RMC 8 1 9 for re,2ularly necessary collections. Self haul: Nothing recyclable materials from their specific property to an approved site if the minimum level of service for such is paid for by the customer. • ♦ . • . .•. _ 16 • ORDINANCE NO. . . • • - :' :: • •• 9 - •_ , •; •: • , . •• : : • system is .•• -• - •--• -is-authorized-to - • - . •••• - •r solid . nste that referred to as "CDL waste") handling or alternative facilities as the County may • • - : - • . . • - ! - - • . " ' • : . ionrecyclable CDL 1. Rabanco Disposal Company Facilities: a. Rabanco Recycling and Waste Reduction Center, 2733 Third Avenue South, Seattle. • • . c. Such other facilities as hereafter may be designated by the County. • • • _ a .• Recyclable CDL waste may be transported to any CDL recycling facility or to a not exceeding ten percent (10%) of total weight per load. Mixed CDL waste shall be taken only to a designated CDL receiving facility, facility, all residual CDL waste must be taken to a designated CDL receiving facility or back up facility designated by the County. • 8-1-7 8 SCHEDULE OF COLLECTION: All garbage, recyclables, and yard wastes as herein provided will be collected within the boundaries of the City as follows: A. Regular collections from business firms and commercial enterprises will be made as often as required but shall not exceed one pickup per day, five (5) days per week, Monday through Friday, between the hours of four o'clock(4:00) A.M. and four o'clock (4:00) P.M., unless the City authorizes an extension of such time. 17 ORDINANCE NO. B. Regular collections of garbage from single-family units and duplexes shall be made one day per week between the hours of seven o'clock (7:00) A.M. and four o'clock (4:00) P.M., Monday through Friday, unless the City authorizes a temporary extension of hours. Regular collection of recyclables from single-family units, duplexes and multi- family residences shall be made one day per week between the hours of seven o'clock (7:00) A.M. and four o'clock (4:00)P.M., unless the City authorizes a temporary extension of hours or more frequent collection. Regular collections of yard waste from I residences, except those located in mobile home courts, shall be biweekly on the same day per week as regular garbage collection. Mobile home courts may have collection of yard wastes only upon agreement of the City and its collection contractor. I C. When a legal holiday falls during the work-week and the contractor does not work on such holiday, Saturday collections will be permitted. 8-1-$9 BILLINGS AND COLLECTIONS; LIEN AND ENFORCEMENT: A. Billings and Collections: 1. Billings: Unless otherwise specified in any contract between the City and the City's collection contractor, the City shall collect the charges for services rendered hereunder from the person as hereunto defined for whom collection services are furnished and/or the owner of the property for which the collection service is rendered. Such billing shall be made monthly or bimonthly and may include charges for other services rendered to the City to such person. a. All charges for collection services rendered and billed hereunder shall be due and payable to the City within twenty five (25) days from billing date. b. If the charges billed are not paid within the twenty (20) day period from the due date, such charges shall become delinquent. Once the charges become delinquent, there shall be added a late fee of ten percent(10%) of the past due charges but not less than fifty cents ($0.50)to compensate the City for handling the past due account, subsequent billings and any collection action taken. c. Upon such delinquency occurring, and following at least one further billing for the charges, if the account is not paid within one hundred twenty (120) days of the rendering of the initial bill which has become delinquent, the City acting through its Utility billing'section, in conjunction with the Solid Waste Utility Coordinator, shall • notify the collection contractor to cease all further collections for said account until payment of accumulated fees has been made in full. The stoppage of services for nonpayment of collection charges shall be in addition to any and all other rights of the City to proceed for the collection of unpaid charges. d. Following cessation of collection due to nonpayment of charges, the delinquent customer shall be penalized monthly an amount equivalent to the monthly services charged for collection as billed prior to the delinquency. 18 • ORDINANCE NO. B. Lien and Enforcement: Any such delinquent charges shall become a lien against Now the property for which the garbage collection service is rendered. A notice of the City's lien for garbage collection disposal service specifying the charges, the period covered by the charges, and giving the legal description of the premises sought to be charged, shall be filed with the office of the King County Auditor within the time required, and shall be foreclosed in the manner and within the time prescribed for liens for labor and material and as otherwise specified in RCW 35.21.140 et seq. All liens filed pursuant to the aforecited State statute shall be prior to any and all other liens and encumbrances filed subsequent to the filing of such lien with the office of the King County Auditor, except the lien for general taxes and local improvement assessments whether levied prior or subsequent thereto. The City shall have the right to claim its collection costs and attorney's fees for foreclosure of the lien. C. Responsibility for Charges: The customer receiving collection services shall have a personal obligation to pay charges for said services. This obligation is in addition to the obligations detailed in Sections 8-149.A and 8-1-g9.B. The City's Solid Waste Utility shall have the absolute authority, except as limited by State laws, to refuse to furnish service to, to discontinue service to, or to refuse to resume services to any applicant or customer on account of their failure to pay delinquent bills owing said utility by such person, whether such bills cover service at the premises sought to be served, or elsewhere within the City. Avow D. Appeal: Prior to the City terminating further collections, the City's utility billing section shall send a notice to the responsible person or persons that the bill for services is delinquent and of the City's intention to terminate service. The person or persons so notified shall have the right, within ten (10) days of receipt of such notification, to appeal to the Finance and Information Services Administrator, in writing, the declaration of delinquency and the City's intention to terminate service. The notice shall be deemed received three (3) days following mailing of the notice. The Finance and Information Services Administrator's inquiry shall be limited to whether or not a delinquency exists, and whether or not the City should terminate further collection services. 8-1-310 RATES FOR SERVICES: The following schedule is hereby adopted as the monthly charges to be paid to the City for services rendered in each category. These rates shall become effective with billings computed on or after January 1 of the year the budget is adopted. A. Residential Customers: 1. For garbage cans and/or garbage units: 2002 Renton Service Level SWU Monthly Rates Mini-can $6.40 ,41"'r 1 can collected weekly 13.44 19 ORDINANCE NO. • 2 cans collected weekly 21.37 3 cans collected weekly 28.82 4 cans collected weekly 36.75 5 cans collected weekly 44.68 6 cans collected weekly 52.66 Each additional can weekly 8.00 Extra garbage, up to 15 gallons 4.00 per unit 3.00 Return trip charge 64 gallon contractor cart— 23.33 new 96 gallon contractor cart— 31.15 new 2. Senior and/or disabled customers who qualified under Section 8-4-31.0 of this Title for low-income rates are eligible for a one dollar sixty cents ($1.60) fee mini- can service for a seventy-five percent (75%) subsidy, or three dollars eighty-four cents ($3.84) for a forty percent (40%) subsidy. For services other than mini-can, the rate schedule above will apply. 3. Miscellaneous Services: The City of Renton offers miscellaneous services. A trip charge of twenty dollars ($20.00) will be imposed for each pickup. In addition,the following rates per item will be charged: Services Cost per Pickup On-Call Bulky Waste Collection Per Item: Refrigerators/freezers $39.13 Washing machine/clothes dryer 16.91 Stove/range/oven 16.91 Dishwasher 16.91 Water Heater 16.91 Other large appliances 16.91 • Sofas/chairs 21.50 Mattresses/box springs 19.20 The City also offers the rental of a second 96-gallon yard waste cart for weekly pickup for one dollar ninety cents ($1.90)per month. Yard waste will now be picked up weekly. B. Commercial Customers: 1. Garbage Cans: Customers have two types of service available in garbage cans—Commercial Can(32 gallons), or Commercial Mini-Can (20 gallons). 20 • • ORDINANCE NO. 2002 Renton '`"" I Service Level SWU Monthly Rates Commercial mini-can (20 gallon) $12.10 1 commercial can (32 gallon can or units) 13.88 2 commercial cans 27.75 3 commercial cans 41.63 Extra commercial cans (per pickup) 8.00 2. Hydraulically Handled Containers One (1)to Eight (8) Yards: The rate for the handling of hydraulically handled containers approved by the City's contractor and the City for use by commercial, industrial and multiple-family residence establishments shall be as follows: a. Monthly Rates: 2002 Renton SWU Monthly Rates Service Level 64 gallon contractor cart $29.96 ,. 96 gallon contractor cart 48.23 1 yard container, 1 pickup/week 75.65 1 yard container, 2 pickups/week 142.32 1 yard container, 3 pickups/week 208.97 1 yard container, 4 pickups/week 275.62 1 yard container, 5 pickups/week 342.29 1.5 yard container, 1 pickup/week 103.59 1.5 yard container, 2 pickups/week 197.32 1.5 yard container, 3 pickups/week 291.05 1.5 yard container, 4 pickups/week 384.78 1.5 yard container, 5 pickups/week 478.50 2 yard container, 1 pickup/week 127.42 2 yard container, 2 pickups/week • • 243.66 2 yard container, 3 pickups/week 359.92 2 yard container, 4 pickups/week 476.17 2 yard container, 5 pickups/week 592.42 3 yard container, 1 pickup/week 181.18 3 yard container, 2 pickups/week 349.53 3 yard container, 3 pickups/week 517.88 3 yard container, 4 pickups/week 686.22 3 yard container, 5 pickups/week 854.58 *`"'' 4 yard container, 1 pickup/week 234.00 21 ORDINANCE NO. 4 yard container, 2 pickups/week 453.99 4 yard container, 3 pickups/week 673.98 4 yard container, 4 pickups/week 893.98 4 yard container, 5 pickups/week 1,113.96 6 yard container, 1 pickup/week 331.80 6 yard container, 2 pickups/week 640.29 6 yard container, 3 pickups/week 948.78 6 yard container, 4 pickups/week 1,257.26 6 yard container, 5 pickups/week 1,565.75 8 yard container, 1 pickup/week 427.53 8 yard container, 2 pickups/week 826.57 8 yard container, 3 pickups/week 1,225.60 8 yard container, 4 pickups/week 1,624.63 8 yard container, 5 pickups/week 2,023.67 Extra commercial yards 15.38 1 yard compactor 624.48 1.5 yard compactor 661.59 2 yard compactor 715.49 3 yard compactor 806.48 4 yard compactor 913.18 6 yard compactor 989.79 Multi-family yard waste(incl. cart) 39.62 b. Rental Rates: Rental rates for one (1)to eight (8) yard containers will be paid in the monthly rates. c. Minimum Pickups: Minimum pickups for containers and compactors between one (1)to eight(8) yards will be once per week. 3. Temporary containers are rented and billings are handled directly by Waste Management, Inc. 4. Extra Charges: a. A ten dollar($10.00) charge will be added for each occurrence of the following services: (1) Container rollouts and rollbacks over fifteen feet (15') from the point of safe truck access. (2) Commercial cans placed more than fifty feet (50') from the point of safe truck access. (3) Opening and closing of container enclosure gates and/or locking and unlocking of container lids. b. A twenty-five dollar($25.00) charge will be added for each occurrence of the following services: (1) Hydraulic disconnect and reconnect of compactors. (2) Compactor roll-off box turnaround. *4000 22 • ORDINANCE NO. (3) Containers that are not available for collection at regularly scheduled pickup time and a request is made that the contractor make a special return trip. c. Any extra yardage charges determined by the collection contractor due to overflowing containers will be charged per yard at the one (1) yard rate listed under subsection B.2 of this Section. 5. Special Services: Whenever special services not contained within this schedule are required, the rate charged for those special services shall be negotiated by the customer with the City and the collection contractor. C. Commercial Roll Off Customers: Commercial roll off customers are those who have a ten(10) to forty (40) yard container or compactor. These large disposal containers are lifted and weighed at the disposal facility. Commercial container customers pay a disposal pickup fee based upon the number of pickups, a weight-based fee and a container rental fee. Compactor customers pay a pickup fee based upon the number of pickups and a weight-based disposal fee. 1. Base Pickup Fees: The base pickup fees are as follows on a per occurrence basis: Commercial Roll Off Rates are Per Pickup 10 yard containers $92.40 _ow,_ 15 yard containers 92.40 20 yard containers 100.85 30 yard containers 113.40 40 yard containers 125.53 10 yard compactor 130.46 20 yard compactor 130.46 30 yard compactor 226.80 40 yard compactor 302.40 The minimum pickup is twice per month. 2. Rental Rates: The following are rental rates for roll off containers. Monthly Rental Rates 10 yard container $38.66 15 yard container 55.16 20 yard container 71.68 30 yard container 88.18 40 yard container 108.69 3. Disposal Fees: In addition to the base charge per pickup and the monthly rental fee, the customer must pay weight-based disposal fees plus tax. D. (Rep. by Ord. 4898, 3-19-2001) 23 ORDINANCE NO. E. Classification And Appeal: Service category classifications shall be on the basis of the type and volume of solid waste and the purpose and type of the dwelling or facility `41619 being served as determined by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator of the City, or the Administrator's duly authorized representative. Any person who shall deem their classification improper may appeal to the Solid Waste Utility Coordinator within forty five (45) days following their classification or change of classification. After the decision of the Solid Waste Utility Coordinator, if the party appealing is still aggrieved, then the party may appeal to the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator, whose decision shall be final. 8-1-4-011 ADOPTION BY REFERENCE: A. The following Federal, State and local environmental health laws, rules or regulations, at least one copy of which is on file with the City Clerk, are hereby adopted as applicable laws, rules and regulations governing the generation and collection of solid waste: 1. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. 2. Title 70.95 RCW, as amended. 3. King County Board of Health Rules and Regulations No. 8. ,,, 1.0 4. King County Code Title 10. B. All waste generated or collected from within the corporate limits of the City which is delivered to the County system for disposal shall be in compliance with such provisions. 8 1 11 VIOLATION OF ADOPTED LAWS DECLARED A NUISANCE: •- - • - • _ - . •.., • . • ILWASiir..it-lr•tnt..rirriAf`rV.ij&A•ir 70��nias.ir_ .. •• • •__ • • P l I 8-1-12 SEVERABILITY: VIOLATIONS OF THIS CHAPTER AND PENALTIES: If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Chapter is id for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional such invalidity or unconstitutionality "' 24 ORDINANCE NO. shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this Chapter. Now it being herein expressly declared that this Chapter and each section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase thereof would have been adopted irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, subsections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Penalties for any violations of any of the provisions of this Chapter shall be Chapter RMC 1 3 1 as now worded or hereafter amended. • SECTION II. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and 30 days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of 2005. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2005. Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1170:2/15/05:ma. 25 4 s_rger-xert44j � - 7. HIGHLANDS STATION MANAGERti-/ , a, UNITED STATES �t /Qweir,friuda POSTAL SERVICE SERVICE March 18, 2005 CITY OF RENTON MAR 2 1. 2005 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE (elZtiecti 11-1416-01-; rt44-i Renton City Council C/O City Clerk 1055 South Grady WY Renton, WA 98055 RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's recommendation dated 01/25/2005 regarding subdivision of a 2.4 acre site located at 327 Bremerton Avenue NE into 20 single- family lots, known as the Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat. (File No. LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF) To Whom It May Concern: During my initial testimony I indicated, that the loading dock at the Renton Highlands Station has a gravity operated dock plate that makes quite a bit of noise. I have recently been informed that the dock plate is in fact operated by a hydraulic lift system, and that it may be possible to modify its operation to reduce the amount of noise it creates. Please note, that the Renton Post Office does not oppose the development of this property into single-family lots. Our primary concern is and was our impact on the individuals that would reside in those homes adjacent to our property. Sincerely, Kevin Chamberlin Highlands Station Manager Renton, WA 98059-9998 (425) 227-6340 17200 116'AVE SE RENTON,WA 98059-9998 425-255-6389 d diz zI&& HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. Ple �/ 2 tot 'L— A Professional Service Corporation illei .l rn, David L Halinen, P.E. Bellevue Place/Bank of America Bldg. (425)454-8272 davidhalinen@halinenlaw.com 10500 NE 8`'', Suite 1900 Fax(425)646-3467 Bellevue, Washington 98004 CITY OF F NTOIN MAR 1 2005 City' RECEIVED EIVED Gt--i it:'S OFFICE ( ccci✓ed within VIA FAX AND E-MAIL deadline dOIlseAt Rigcra 1kfrm Renton City Council c/o Renton City Clerk 1055 S. Grady Way, Seventh Floor Renton, Washington 98055 Re: The Proposed"Ridgeview Court"Residential Subdivision(LUA04-131, PP, SA- H, ECF)on Appeal to the City Council Abutting Property Owner Liberty Ridge L.L.C.'s Comments on the Appeal Dear Council Members: I am writing on behalf of Liberty Ridge L.L.C., the owner of an approximately 9.4-acre parcel of land lying immediately south and southwest of the Ridgeview Court site(about 150 feet to the south of the Renton Highlands Post Office), to request that you grant the appeal that the Ridgeview Court applicant filed. My client supports the Ridgeview Court application and was shocked when the Hearing Examiner issued a recommendation of denial based upon the last-minute oral testimony of a postal employee who asserted that some of the post office operations were noisy. My client has its own subdivision application pending for a single-family residential project on its property, a project called `Elmhurst". Because of concern over the Hearing Examiner's Elmhurst recommendation of denial concerning Ridgeview Court, my client hired an acoustical engineer (Jerry Lilly of JGL Acoustics) to conduct nighttime noise measurements along the north boundary of my client's property. One of the noise monitoring stations was essentially at the Ridgeview Court site's southeast corner. To make a long story short, Mr. Lilly's report documents that the measured noise levels were substantially below the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's exterior noise standard that ordinarily must be met by all residential development projects that involve HUD financial support (see Title 24, Part 51, Subpart B, Section 51.103 of the Code of Federal Regulations). Mr. Lilly's measurements proved that the noise environment in the vicinity of both the Elmhurst site and the Ridgeview Court site are well within recognized standards for residential development. Renton City Council do Renton City Clerk March 21,2005 Page 2 In conclusion, Liberty Ridge L.L.C. urges you to promptly grant the Ridgeview Court applicant's appeal and approve the Ridgeview Court subdivision. Sincerely, HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. v David L. Ha inen cc: Liberty Ridge L.L.C. Attn: Michael Merlino Attn: Don Merlino Ridgeview Court, LLC Attn: Cliff Williams From: "David Halinen" <davidhalinen@halinenlaw.com> To: "Bonnie Walton" <Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 3/21/2005 4:52:50 PM Subject: Letter concerning the Ridgeview Court Appeal Please print and recognize the attached letter. Dave Halinen HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. 2115 North 30th Street, Suite 203 Tacoma, WA 98403-3397 (206)443-4684 Seattle (253)627-6680 Tacoma (253)272-9876 FAX davidhalinen@halinenlaw.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this email, along with any attachments hereto, may contain privileged and confidential material and is intended only for the use of the individual(s)or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or forwarding of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received the communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail, or by calling (206)443-4686 (Seattle)or(253)627-6680 (Tacoma), and delete the original message and its attachments from any computer. Thank you. 3 v VeIti�M� Date 3- aooS TRANSPORTATION/AVIATION COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT March 21,2005 Trench Restoration and Street Overlay Requirements and Standard Details (Referred March 14, 2005) The Transportation Committee recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the amended RMC 9-10-11, City of Renton Trench Restoration and Street Overlay Requirements and Standard Details. The amendments will establish guidelines for the restoration of City streets disturbed by installation of utilities and other construction activities, and will apply to any public or private utilities, general contractors, or others permitted to work in the public rights-of-way. The Committee further recommends that the ordinance regarding this matter be presented for first reading. Marcie Palmer, Chair / 57("111P Don Per son, Vice Chair I / � dandy Co man, Member cc: Gregg Zimmerman,PB/PW Administrator Neil Watts,Development Services Director Michael Stenhouse,Maintainance Services Director Kayren Kittrick,Development Engineering Supervisor Jan Iilian, Engineering Specialist H:/Division.s/Develop.ser/Admin/Temporary Docs/TRS Comm Report c cj, w.w 3'tiiii� TRANSPORTATION/AVIATION COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT Date ;005- March oosMarch 21,2005 SR-169 Corridor Improvement Funding (Referred: March 14, 2005) The Transportation/Aviation Committee recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve a resolution for the purpose of supporting the SR-169 Improvement Consortium's efforts to obtain State legislative funding as part of the SR-169 Corridor Improvements in the amount of$4 million to be completed as funding becomes available. The Committee further recommends that the resolution regarding this matter be presented for reading and adoption. 37n Q- Marcie Palmer, Chair /1111 .----- Don Persson, Vice-Chair ) r andy Corman, Member c: Sandra Meyer Nick Afzali Sharon Griffin �.� TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT pat 3-ai aoo5 March 21, 2005 Temporary Closure of Portions of Sunset Blvd N (Referred March 7, 2005) The Transportation Committee recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation for the temporary lane closures of Sunset Blvd N and NE Sunset Blvd and the temporary full closure of the Houser Way tunnel and Sunset Blvd NE. The Transportation Committee further recommends that: • "Notice of Traffic Revision/Construction" signs be erected at key intersections at least 2 weeks prior to construction to give motorists advanced notice of potential delays and alternate routes. • Modify traffic signal timing to minimize traffic delays. • Work with the Renton Police Department to provide increased patrol car visibility surrounding the construction area and along its posted detour routes. • Inform the public of the closures and detour routes through mail flyers, community meetings and events, and local news media. • Coordinate closures with affected businesses (e.g. PACCAR) and the Renton School District. The Committee further recommends that the resolution regarding this matter be presented for reading and adoption. J a. 99,111(Ck Marci- '.lmer, Chair Don Persson, Vice Chair Randy Corman, Member cc: Lys Hornsby,Utility Systems Director Dave Christensen,Wastewater and Technical Services Supervisor UTILITIES COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT ri '� 8- R/-#2,005" March 21,2005 Broodstock Collection Facility (Referred October 25, 2004) , 3ito/2-L 07)ovR9 )a!/J ie iZfi,e_el The Utilities Committee recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the I-405 site as the best location for a broodstock collection facility within Renton city limits, provided that the following issues can be negotiated to the satisfaction of the City: SPU provides adequate mitigation for impacts of construction and operation of the broodstock facility on City lands and activities, including, but not limited to, impacts on spawning behavior, parks use, aesthetics, surface water, recreation, public safety, riparian habitat, Parks Master Plan, and Narco Road maintenance. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) modifies the Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) for the dredging project to address potential impacts from the broodstock facility on the City's mitigation requirements. SPU supports future maintenance dredging and provides monitoring for fish activity at and below the broodstock facility. Upon Council concurrence with this recommendation, staff will pursue negotiations with SPU regarding permitting and construction of the broodstock facility at the I-405 site. Randy Corman, Chair Dan Lawson Vice air r Don Persson, Member cc: Gregg Zimmerman,PBPW Administrator Lys Hornsby,Utility Systems Director 3-aA zoos' CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 37'42 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, SETTING A HEARING DATE TO VACATE A 10' WIDE PLATTED WALKWAY APPROXIMATELY 187' IN LENGTH, CONNECTING NW 611I STREET TO RAINIER AVENUE (JACK D. ALHADEFF — JDA GROUP; VAC-05-002). WHEREAS, a Petition has been filed with the City Clerk of the City of Renton on January 26, 2005, pursuant to the requirements of RCW 35.79, petitioning for the vacation of a 10' wide platted walkway approximately 187' in length, connecting NW 6th Street to Rainier Avenue, as hereinafter more particularly described, and the petition having been signed by the owners of more than two-thirds (2/3) of the property abutting upon the street portion sought to be vacated, and described as follows: See Exhibit"A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein (10' wide platted walkway approximately 187' in length, connecting NW 6th Street to Rainier Avenue). NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION L That April 18, 2005, at the hour of 7:30 P.M. at the City Council Chambers at City Hall, Renton, King County, Washington, is hereby fixed as the time and place for a public hearing to consider the Petition for vacating a 10' wide platted walkway approximately 187' in length, connecting NW 6th Street to Rainier Avenue, which hearing date is not more than sixty nor less than twenty days from the date of passage of this Resolution. SECTION H. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to give notice of the time and date of this hearing as provided in RCW 35.79.020 and any and/or all persons 1 RESOLUTION NO. interested therein or objecting to this vacation may then appear and be heard, or they may file their written objections with the City Clerk at or prior to the time of hearing on this vacation. SECTION LEL The City Council shall determine, as provided in RCW 35.79.030, as to whether an appraisal shall be secured to determine the fair market value of the property sought to be vacated as provided for in Ordinance No. 4266, and the amount of compensation to be paid by the Petitioner-Owners to the City for this vacation. The City likewise reserves the right to retain an easement for public utility and related purposes. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2005. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2005. Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.1098:3/8/05 2 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT PORTION OF PLATTED WALKWAY LYING BETWEEN LOT 7, BLOCK 2, AND LOT 8, BLOCK 3 IN WOODY GLEN ADDITION,ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 47 OF PLATS, PAGES 91 AND 92, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. • K:\Survey\Yr 2003\2036I5\615LEGAL041203.doc MAP EXHIBIT OG-G- OG OQ g2 *100%��OQ PGS P�1 P� �• 1 ' 9L �OOy G Q Gc113 \ LOT 7, BLOCK 2 WOODY GLEN ADDITION VOL. 47, PAGE 91 & 92 NW 6TH ST 10 WA Y PIAT _ mot,G� To BE-+--- VAC= LOT 8, BLOCK 3 WOODY GLEN ADDITION VOL. 47, PAGE 91 & 92 0, ,c),\ �� THIS VACATION IS BEING REQUESTED 1 , • cs\ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE SHORT G\-- Gc PLAT LUA-04-139 BEING REVIEWED BY THE CITY OF RENTON. 00 pc GRAPHIC SCALE 50 0 25 50 100 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 50 ft. 3-�/aoos CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 37V.3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, APPROVING FINAL PLAT (LAURELHURST PHASE 1; FILE NO. LUA- 04-160FP). WHEREAS, a petition for the approval of a final plat for the subdivision of a certain tract of land as hereinafter more particularly described, located within the City of Renton, has been duly approved by the Planning/Building/Public Works Department; and WHEREAS, after investigation, the Administrator of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department has considered and recommended the approval of the final plat, and the approval is proper and advisable and in the public interest; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety, and general welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools, schoolgrounds, sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the public use and interest will be served by the platting of the subdivision and dedication; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The above findings are true and correct in all respects. SECTION IL The final plat approved by the Planning,/Building/Public Works Department pertaining to the following described real estate, to wit: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth 1 RESOLUTION NO. (The property, consisting of approximately 15.7 acres, is located in the vicinity of Duvall Avenue NE, west of NE 2°d Street) is hereby approved as such plat, subject to the laws and ordinances of the City of Renton, and subject to the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department dated March 10, 2005. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2005. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2005. Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.1099:3/10/05:ma 2 EXHIBIT A CORE DESIGN, INC. BELLEVUE WA 98007 Core Project No: 02052 03/02/05 Legal Description PARCEL 1: THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON; • EXCEPT THE EAST 20 FEET THEREOF CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY FOR ROAD PURPOSES BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 1799641. PARCEL 3A: PARCEL A, CITY OF RENTON LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LUA-04-113-LLA, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 20041202900026. PARCEL 4: THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER; EXCEPT THE EAST 190 FEET THEREOF; TOGETHER WITH THE NORTH 30 FEET OF THE EAST 190 FEET OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER; EXCEPT THE EAST 20 FEET THEREOF FOR ROAD; ALL IN SECTION 15,TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST,WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON. PARCEL 5A: LOTS 1,2, 3 AND 4, KING COUNTY SHORT PLAT NO. 179143, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 7910180905 BEING A PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 15,TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST,WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE WEST 7.5 FEET THEREOF FOR ROAD PARCEL 6: LOTS 1,2 AND 3, KING COUNTY SHORT PLAT NO.678160, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 7810171032,SAID SHORT PLAT BEING A SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 15,TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST,WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON. C:\Documents and Settings\jsitthidet\Local Settings\Temp\MXLibDir\02052L28.doc NE 4114 Y ST 4 4 V SE 129 - FT �°ARD ct � �_ 4 a r *" � .� NE 2ND 1�1. �/ /,/�` 8 NE ST / NE 2ND ST th 1ST P1. SITE N N f- SE 1St PL ��r�-- q Q SE� SE 135tH ST �F a SE 136114ST illtll°°rilill:j I SE 138TH St SE /3877.4 Ft RENTON�. SE 1397#•187 SE WUTN St / 14181 N ix I 87' g1 Sk140114 SE SND ST / /lik VICINITY MAP ler N.T.S. LAURELHURST PAGE PHASE 1 MIRY MAP CORE10F 1 1471 J NE 291,Place Suite 101 Wow.,Washington 98007 425.8857877 Fax 425.8857963 DESIGN ENGINEERING • PLANNING • SURVEYING JtJB IVO_ a2052 f • Jdept6of zoos CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 37�� A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, RATIFYING AMENDMENTS TO THE COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES. WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A.210, mandates the development and adoption of Countywide Planning Policies for King County;and WHEREAS, King County, the City of Seattle, the City of Bellevue and the Suburban Cities of King County have met jointly as the Growth Management Planning Council(GMPC)to develop and recommend Countywide Planning Policies;and WHEREAS, the City of Renton has ratified the Countywide Planning Policies and subsequent amendments; and WHEREAS, Countywide Planning Policy FW-1, Step 9, provides for an amendment process to change the Planning Policies as may be necessary from time to time;and WHEREAS,on February 14,2005,the Metropolitan King County Council ratified the proposed amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies,including: 1) GMPC Motion 04-01,Amendments to the Potential Annexation Area Map affecting lands within Tukwila,Redmond,Enumclaw,Bellevue,Kirkland,and Bear Creek Urban Planned Development within the existing urban growth area,and designating a new Urban Separator in Redmond; 2) GMPC Motion 04-02,Amendments to the Urban Growth Area map,adding lands in Issaquah and Renton PAAs to the Urban Growth Area and amending the Urban Growth Boundary; 1 RESOLUTION NO. 3) GMPC Motion 04-03,Amendment designating the Burien downtown as an Urban Center as defined in the CPPs; 4) GMPC Motion 04-04,technical corrections to growth targets for the West Hill unincorporated area, Tukwila,Kent,Pacific and Auburn; and 5) GMPC Motion 04-05, Map amendments changing the Urban Growth Areas Map and Urban Growth Area Boundary to add a 29-acre area to the Covington PAA; and WHEREAS,the amendment process requires ratification of proposed amendments by at least 30 percent of the City and County governments representing 70 percent of the population in King County; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The above findings are true and correct in all respects. SECTION II. The proposed amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies are consistent with the adopted City Comprehensive Plan and the adopted City Business Plan. SECTION III. The best interests and general welfare of the City of Renton would be served by ratification of Ordinance 15121, 15123, and 15122 (GMPC Motions 04-01, 04-02, 04-03, 04-04, 04-05) as approved by the King County Council and the Growth Management Planning Council. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of ,2005. Bonnie I. Walton,City Clerk 2 RESOLUTION NO. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2005. Kathy Keolker-Wheeler,Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.1100:3/14/05:ma 3 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. ...q7 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF THE NORTHBOUND LANES OF SUNSET BLVD N. (N. 3RD ST TO I-405), THE HOUSER WAY TUNNEL, AND THE EASTBOUND LANES OF NE SUNSET BLVD (SUNSET BLVD. NE TO HARRINGTON AVE NE); AND TEMPORARY TOTAL CLOSURE OF PORTIONS OF SUNSET BLVD NE. WHEREAS, the City of Renton plans to install a new 18" sanitary sewer main in Sunset Blvd. N., Sunset Blvd. NE, and NE Sunset Blvd during the Sunset Sewer Interceptor Phase II project; and WHEREAS, to facilitate this construction and allow for a safe condition for both vehicles and pedestrians it is necessary to do this work under temporary street closures along the sewer main's route, as follows: temporary closure of the northbound lanes of Sunset Blvd. N. (N. 3rd St. to I-405), the Houser Way Tunnel, and the eastbound lanes of NE Sunset Blvd. (Sunset Blvd. NE to Harrington Ave. NE), and temporary total closure of portions of Sunset Blvd. NE; and WHEREAS, pursuant to City Code section 9-9-3 the City Council is to authorize such closures by means of a Resolution; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The above findings are true and correct in all respects. SECTION II. The City Council does hereby authorize temporary closure of the northbound lanes of Sunset Blvd. N. (N. 3rd St. to 1-405), the Houser Way Tunnel, and the eastbound lanes of NE Sunset Blvd. (Sunset Blvd. NE to Harrington Ave. NE), and temporary 1 RESOLUTION NO. total closure of portions of Sunset Blvd. NE; to occur during the period of March 1, 2005, to November 15, 2005, to allow the contractor to install the new sewer main and restore the roadway pavement. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2005. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2005. Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.1101:3/17/05:ma 2 airSel 3-02/-01405- CITY -a/01405- CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. .3 776 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, SUPPORTING LEGISLATIVE FUNDING FROM THE 2005 WASHINGTON STATE LEGISLATURE FOR CERTAIN ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ON SR-169 TO SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE THE LEVEL OF SERVICE. WHEREAS, SR-169, the Maple Valley Highway, runs from Renton to Enumclaw and is an important state arterial that moves significant freight and passenger vehicles; and WHEREAS, the SR-169 Improvement Consortium seeks to help focus attention on needed changes to the SR-169 corridor, and Renton is a member of this consortium of cities, school districts, fire districts and chambers of commerce; and WHEREAS, the cities and unincorporated areas along the SR-169 corridor are some of the fastest growing areas in the state, and are growing in accordance with and under Growth Management Act guidelines; and WHEREAS, the added population plus added hauling for construction projects such as the SeaTac Airport Third Runway are leading to significant transportation delays along this important corridor; and WHEREAS,there are recognized transportation bottlenecks, particularly at Four Corners (the intersection of two state highways — SR-516 and SR-169), as well as the SR-169 and SE 416th intersection between Enumclaw and Black Diamond, for which a project has been identified; and WHEREAS,the Cities of Renton and Maple Valley have already put together most of the funding to build improvements that would greatly improve the levels of service on their bottlenecks; 1 RESOLUTION NO. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION L The above findings are true and correct in all respects. SECTION IL The City Council of the City of Renton urges the Washington State Legislature to appropriate $4 million to meet the funding requirements for two well-recognized traffic bottlenecks on SR 169, and to include this appropriation in the 2005 Transportation Budget. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2005. • Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2005. Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.1096:2/22/05 2 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON °ftr ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 5-1, FEE SCHEDULE, OF TITLE V (FINANCE AND BUSINESS REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON" BY SETTING AQUATIC CENTER PASS CARD RATES AND CANOPY RENTAL FEES. WHEREAS,the City of Renton wishes to provide to its citizens the most cost effective services possible; and WHEREAS,the City Council has adopted a policy that the Aquatic Center Admission fees shall cover the costs of services; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION L Section 5-1-7 of Chapter 5-1, Fee Schedule, of Title V(Finance and Business Regulations)of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled"Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows: 5-1-7: AQUATIC CENTER ADMISSION FEES: Admission for the Aquatic Center shall be as follows: Resident Children 4 and younger Free Non-resident Children 4 and younger Free DAY USE SEASON PASS Resident Youth 5-12 $4.00 $48.00 Non-resident Youth 5-12 $6.00 $72.00 Resident Teen 13-17 $5.00 $60.00 Non-resident Teen 13-17 $8.00 $96.00 1 ORDINANCE NO. Resident Adult $6.00 $72.00 Non-resident Adult $12.00 $144.00 Resident Senior $5.00 $60.00 Non-resident Senior $6.00 $72.00 Resident Lap Swim Only $3.00 $36.00 Non-resident Lap Swim Only $4.00 $48.00 Resident Family Rate* n/a $168.00 Non-resident Family Rate* n/a $288.00 *A family is defined as a group of four of which at least one, but not more than two, are adults. The family season pass card rate is based on a family of four persons. A flat rate of$25 will be charged for each additional family member. All persons must reside at the same address. Group Rates—for groups of 10 or more: Resident Rates: $5.00 per person Non-Resident Rates: $8.00 per person. Staff has the authority to offer discounted daily rates for partial sessions or Renton-only events. .44.00 Locker Rental $0.25 Resident Swimming Lessons, per session $40.00 Non-resident Swimming Lessons, per session $48.00 Canopy Rental Fees(includes canopy and admission for one leisure swim session): Henry Moses Party Tent#1 (10' x 20' for up to 25 guests): Resident Rate, per session $150.00 Non-resident Rate, per session $180.00 Henry Moses Party Tent#2 (10' x 10' for up to 15 guests): Resident Rate: $100.00 Non-resident Rate: $120.00 All-Inclusive Rentals: $995 for a 2-hour rental 2 ORDINANCE NO. SECTION H. This ordinance shall be effective on its passage, approval, and 30 Nr.r days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2005. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2005. Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1168:2/14/05:ma 3 CITY OF RENTON,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING SECTION 9-10-11 OF CHAPTER 10, STREET EXCAVATIONS, OF TITLE IX, PUBLIC WAYS AND PROPERTY, OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON" BY REVISING TRENCH RESTORATION AND STREET OVERLAY REQUIREMENTS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Section 9-10-11 of Chapter 10, Street Excavations, of Title IX, Public Ways and Property, of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows: TRENCH RESTORATION AND STREET OVERLAY REQUIREMENTS A. Purpose: The purpose of this code section is to establish guidelines for the restoration of City streets disturbed by installation of utilities, and other construction activities. Any public or private utilities, general contractors, or others permitted to work in the public right-of-way will adhere to the procedures set forth in this policy. B. Definition: Engineer: The term engineer shall denote the City project manager, inspector and/or plan reviewer, or their designated representative. C. Application: The following standards in this Section shall be followed when doing trench or excavation work within the paved portion of any City of Renton right-of-way. Modifications or exemptions to these standards may be authorized by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator, or authorized representative, upon written 'err 1 ORDINANCE NO. request by the permittee, the permittee's contractor or engineer, and demonstration of an equivalent alternative. D. Hours of Operations: Hours for work within the roadway for asphalt overlays or trench restoration shall be as directed by the Traffic Control Plan requirements and as approved by the Traffic Operations Engineer. E. Inspection: The Engineer may determine in the field that a full street-width (edge-of- pavement to edge-of-pavement)overlay is required due to changes in the permit conditions such as, but not limited to the following: 1. There has been damage to the existing asphalt surface due to the contractor's equipment. 2. The trench width was increased significantly or the existing pavement is undermined, or damaged. 3. Any other construction related activities that require additional pavement *iird restoration. F. City of Renton Standards: All materials and workmanship shall be in accordance with the City of Renton Standard and Supplemental Specifications (current adopted version) except where otherwise noted in these Standards. Materials and workmanship are required to be in conformance with standards for the Standard Specifications for Roact Bridge, and Municipal Construction prepared by the Washington State Chapter of the American Public Works Association (APWA) and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and shall comply with the most current edition, as modified by the City of Renton Supplemental Specifications. Nod 2 ORDINANCE NO. 1. An asphalt paver shall be used in accordance with Section 5-04.3(3) of Standard *toe Specifications. A "Layton Box" or equal may be used in place of the power-propelled paver. Rollers shall be used in accordance with Section 5-04.3(4)of the Standard Specifications. `Plate Compactors" and"Jumping Jacks" SHALL NOT be used in lieu of rollers. 2. Trench backfill and resurfacing shall be as shown in the City of Renton Standard Details, unless modified by the City Permit. Surfacing depths shown in the Standard Details are minimums and may be increased by the Engineer to meet traffic loads or site conditions. 3. Requirement For Patching, Overlay, and Overlay Widths: All trench and pavement cuts shall be made by sawcut or by grinding. Sawcuts or grinding shall be a minimum of one foot (1') outside the trench width. The top two inches (2") of asphalt shall be ground down to a minimum distance of one foot (1') beyond the actual outside edges of the trench and shall be replaced with two inches(2")of Class B asphalt, per City of Renton Standard Plan#HR- 23 (SP Page H032A). At the discretion of the engineer, a full street width overlay may be required. Lane-width or a full street-width overlay will be determined based upon the location and length of the proposed trench within the roadway cross-section. Changes in field conditions may warrant implementation of additional overlay requirements. a. Trenches(Road Crossings): (1) The minimum width of a transverse patch (road crossing) shall be six and one-half feet (6.5'). See City of Renton Standard Plan Drawing #HR-23 (SP Page: H032A). (2) Any affected lane will be ground down two inches (2") and paved for the entire width of the lane. 3 ORDINANCE NO. (3) The patch shall be a minimum of one foot (1') beyond the excavation and patch length shall be a minimum of an entire traveled lane. (4) If the outside of the trenching is within three feet (3') of any adjacent lane line, the entire adjacent traveled lane affected will be repaved. (5) An area including the trench and one foot (1') on each side of the trench but not less than six and one half feet (6.5') total for the entire width of the affected traveled lanes will be ground down to a depth of two inches (2"). A two-inch (2") overlay of Class B asphalt will be applied per City standards. b. Trenches Running Parallel with the Street: (1) The minimum width of a longitudinal patch shall be four and one- half feet(4.5'). See City of Renton Standard Plan Drawing#HR-05 (SP Page H032). (2) If the trenching is within a single traveled lane, an entire lane- width overlay will be required. (3) If the outside of the trenching is within three feet (3') of any adjacent lane line, the entire adjacent traveled land affected will be overlaid. (4) If the trenching is greater than, or equal to 30% of lane per block (660 foot maximum block length), or if the total patches exceed 12 per block, then the lanes affected will be overlaid. Minimum overlay shall include all patches within the block section. (5) The entire traveled lane width for the length of the trench and an additional ten feet (10') at each end of the trench will be ground down to a depth of two inches (2"). A two-inch(2")overlay of Class B will be applied per City standards. Noel 4 ORDINANCE NO. c. Potholing - Pot holing shall meet the same requirements as trenching and pavement restoration. Potholing shall be a minimum of one foot(1')beyond the excavation. All affected lanes will be ground down to a depth of two inches (2") and paved not less than six and one half feet (6.5') wide for the entire width of the lane. Potholes greater than five feet (5') in length, width or diameter shall be restored to trench restoration standards. In all cases potholes shall be repaired per Renton Standard Plan #HRO5 (SP Page 11032). Restoration requirements utilizing vactor equipment will be determined by the engineer. 4. Pavement Removal In Lieu Of Grinding: The contractor in all cases can remove the pavement in the replacement area instead of grinding out the specified two inches (2") of asphalt. Full pavement replacement to meet or exceed the existing pavement depth will be required for the area of pavement removal. 5. Trench Backfill and Restoration Construction Requirements: a. Trench restoration shall be either by a patch or overlay method, as required and indicated on City of Renton Standard Plans#HR-05, HR-23, and HR-22 (SP Pages #H032, H032A, and 11033). b. All trench and pavement cuts, which will not be overlaid, shall be made by sawcut or grinding. Sawcuts shall be a minimum of two feet (T) outside the excavated trench width. c. All trenching within the top four feet (4') shall be backfilled with crushed surfacing materials conforming to Section 4-04 of the Standard Specifications. Any trenching over four feet (4') in depth may use materials approved by the Engineer or Materials Lab for backfilling below the four-foot(4')depth. ''fir 5 ORDINANCE NO. If the existing material (or other material) is determined by the Engineer to be suitable for backfill, the contractor may use the native material except that the top six inches (6") shall be crushed surfacing top course material. The trench shall be compacted to a minimum ninety-five percent (95%) density, as described in Section 2-03 of the Standard Specifications. In the top six feet (6') of any trench, backfill compaction shall be performed in 8 to 12-inch lifts. Any trench deeper than six feet (6') may be compacted in 24 inch lifts, up to the top six-foot(6')zone. All compaction shall be performed by mechanical methods. The compaction tests may be performed in four-foot (4') vertical increments maximum. The test results shall be given to the Engineer for review and approval prior to paving. The number and location of tests required shall be determined by the Engineer. d. Temporary restoration of trenches for overnight use shall be accomplished by using MC mix (cold mix), Asphalt Treated Base (ATB), or steel plates, as approved by the Engineer. ATB used for temporary restoration may be dumped directly into the trench, bladed out and rolled. After rolling, the trench must be filled flush with asphalt to provide a smooth riding surface. e. Asphalt Concrete Class E or Class B shall be placed to the compacted depth as required and indicated on City of Renton Standard Plans #HR-05, HR-23, and HR-22 (SP Pages#H032, H032A, and H033) or as directed by the Engineer. The grade of asphalt shall be AR-4000W. The materials shall be made in conformance with Section 9-02.1(4) of the Standard Specifications. 6 ORDINANCE NO. f. Tack coat shall be applied to the existing pavement at edge of saw cuts Nisso and shall be emulsified asphalt grade CSS-1, as specified in Section 9-02.1(6) of the Standard Specifications. Tack shall be applied as specified in Section 5-04 of the Standard Specifications. g. Asphalt Concrete Class E or Class B shall be placed in accordance with Section 5-04 of the Standard Specifications; except those longitudinal joints between successive layers of asphalt concrete shall be displaced laterally a minimum of twelve inches (12"), unless otherwise approved by the Engineer. Fine and coarse aggregate shall be in accordance with Section 9-03.8 of the Standard Specifications. All street surfaces, walks or driveways within the street trenching areas shall be feathered and shimmed to an extent that provides a smooth-riding connection and expeditious drainage flow for the newly paved surface. Feathering and shimming shall not decrease the minimum vertical curb depth below four inches (4") for storm water flow. The Engineer may require additional grinding to increase the curb depth available for storm water flow in areas that are inadequate. Shimming and feathering as required by the Engineer shall be accomplished by raking out the oversized aggregates from the Class B mix as appropriate. Surface smoothness shall be per Section 5-04.3(13) of the Standard Specifications. The paving shall be corrected by removal and repaving of the trench only. Asphalt patch depths will vary based upon the streets being trenched. The actual depths of asphalt and the work to be performed shall be as required and indicated on City of Renton Standard Plans #HR-05, HR-23, and HR-22 (SP Pages#11032, H032A, and H033). Naar 7 ORDINANCE NO. Compaction of all lifts of asphalt shall be a minimum ninety-two percent (92%) of NIS density as determined by WSDOT Test Method 705. The number of tests required shall be determined by the Engineer. Testing shall be performed by an independent testing lab with the results being supplied to the Engineer. Testing is not intended to relieve the contractor from any liability for the trench restoration. It is intended to show the inspector, and the City, that the restoration meets these specifications. h. All joints shall be sealed using paving asphalt AR-4000W. i. When trenching within the unpaved roadway shoulder(s), the shoulder shall be restored to its original condition, or better. j. The final patch shall be completed as soon as possible and shall not exceed fifteen(15)working days after first opening the trench. This time frame may be adjusted if delays are due to inclement paving weather or other adverse conditions that may exist. However, delaying of final patch or overlay work is subject to the Engineer's approval. The Engineer may deem it necessary to complete the work within the fifteen (15) working day time frame and not allow any time extension. Should this occur, the Contractor shall perform the necessary work, as directed by the Engineer. k. A City of Renton Temporary Traffic Control Plan (from Renton Transportation Engineering) shall be submitted and approved by the Engineer a minimum of three(3)working days prior to commencement of work. 8 ORDINANCE NO. 6. Removal of Utility Locate Markings from Sidewalks Required: The Permittee will be required to remove utility locate marks on sidewalks only within the Downtown Core Area. The permittee shall remove the utility locate marks within 14 days of job completion. SECTION IL This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and 30 days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2005. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2005. *roe Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.1130:2/14/05:ma 9 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 4-2, ZONING DISTRICTS — USES AND STANDARDS, CHAPTER 4-3, ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS AND OVERLAY DISTRICTS, CHAPTER 4-4, CITY-WIDE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, CHAPTER 4-6, STREET AND UTILITY STANDARDS, AND CHAPTER 4-11, DEFINITIONS, OF TITLE IV (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON" TO AMEND THE R-1 RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY ZONE IN ORDER TO REGULATE CLUSTERED DEVELOPMENT AND CREATE AN URBAN SEPARATOR OVERLAY DESIGNATION. WHEREAS, the King County Countywide Planning Policies designate certain properties in the County as"Urban Separators"; and WHEREAS, Countywide Planning Policy LU-27 calls for the preservation of urban *Neeseparators as permanent low density lands which protect adjacent resource lands, Rural Areas, and environmentally sensitive areas; and WHEREAS, Urban Separators are intended to create open space corridors within and between Urban Areas which provide environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits; and WHEREAS, Countywide Planning Policy LU-27 establishes that maintenance of urban separators is a regional as well as local concern and further provides that modifications to development regulations should have King County review and concurrence; and WHEREAS,the City of Renton has coordinated review of the proposed Urban Separator regulations with King County staff and elected officials; and '441.0.. 1 ORDINANCE NO. WHEREAS, applicable Metropolitan King County Code, Title 21 A.12.030.17, establishes standards within R-1 zoning, including a fifty percent contiguous open space requirement and mandatory clustered development outside these corridors; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Community Design Element policies that designate certain low-density residential and resource areas as Urban Separators, to provide physical and visual distinctions between Renton and adjacent communities, and to define Renton's boundaries; and WHEREAS, the City Council created a Residential Low Density Designation to map Urban Separators; and WHEREAS, the Renton City Council determined that Renton development standards should address the same or better level of protection for Urban Separators as is provided by King County regulations; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, 441101 WASHINGTON,DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Section 4-2-110.A, Development Standards for Single Family Residential Zoning Designations, of Chapter 2,Zoning Districts—Uses and Standards,of Title IV(Development Regulations)of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled"Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as shown on Exhibit A. SECTION H. Subsection 4-2-110.D.3 of Section 4-2-110.D, Conditions Associated with Development Standards Table for Single Family Residential Zoning Designations, of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts—Uses and Standards, of Title IV(Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled"Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended, to read as follows: 2 ORDINANCE NO. 3. Clustering is allowed to meet objectives such as preserving significant natural features, providing neighborhood open space, or facilitating the provision of sewer service. Within designated urban separators, clustering is required, consistent with the provision of Section 4-3-110, Urban Separator Overlay Regulations. a. The maximum net density requirement shall not be exceeded except that within Urban Separators a density bonus may be granted allowing the total density to achieve one dwelling unit per gross contiguous acre for projects that meet the following criteria. (1) Provision of native vegetation cover on 65%of the gross area of all parcels in the land use action, including both the area within and outside the open space corridor, with either existing or new vegetative cover, and at least one of the following additional criteria. (i) Enhancement of wetlands is provided at a ratio of one-half acre enhanced for one acre delineated within the Urban Separator pursuant to Section 4-3-050M 12b. Evaluation Criteria, and Section 4-3-050M 12.c. Wetlands Chosen for Enhancement. Enhancement proposed for a density bonus may not also be used for a mitigation for other wetland alterations. (ii) Legal non-conforming uses are removed from the site and/or brought into conformance with Renton standards. (iii) Natural surface pedestrian and/or trails, with public access, are provided as part of an adopted trail system or,where there is no planned trail system, in a configuration approved by the Reviewing Official. (iv) In the absence of either wetlands or legal non-conforming uses on the site, public access and trails shall be required to the satisfaction of the Reviewing Official. Nome 3 ORDINANCE NO. (2) Parcels within the Urban Separator may be combined into larger Ned contiguous holdings to allow platting under bonus density, however existing legal lots shall not be reduced in land area for the purpose of transferring density unless such lots are included in a proposed plat. b. The area of individual lots shall not be less than 10,000 sq. ft. SECTION III. A new Section, 4-3-110, of Chapter 4-3,Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts, of Title 1V (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled"Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby added, to read as follows: 4-3-110 URBAN SEPARATOR OVERLAY REGULATIONS: A. PURPOSE: The purpose of this section is to implement the Urban Separators policies in the Community Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan and the King County Countywide Nod Planning Policies. The intent is to provide physical and visual distinctions between Renton and adjacent communities, define Renton's boundaries and create contiguous open space corridors within and between urban communities, which provide environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits. Urban Separators shall be permanent low-density lands that protect resources and environmentally sensitive areas. B. APPLICABILITY: This section shall apply to subdivisions and building permits on lands within designated Urban Separators as shown in the Urban Separators Maps. C. URBAN SEPARATORS MAPS: 4 ORDINANCE NO. �m !tall; mill:, !II :iii_oy �Qrrey R1l '1Gq ! d‘ firlpi lilt cij, wiwriii./.. #A,,i77:41141.,46: ,41-i,k1s. „---, iiii aim Ir w `." > .tird ,. 0/1111Ph*. -,.:,;:„Ai,,,,4'T-,,z;1_,:-..-- ';'—':..s'-' ''Z'''':'-Z.: ■��. , -sitit:::T,',-u ' - nes.wrim Sl X42'- EP: 011-' 1 ��II�Li3i�1� `� 1114114 '�1�Minim a ar 1u�3i1Z1 "i10MILEr� lam'E Tofiafr ___ May Valley Urban Separator Overlay Contiguous Open space :i•r E�cY'�regsa Kalp3o'u.6SSamFii Urban Separator Boundary `# ce Mtt...— *awe '44rr., 5 ORDINANCE NO. 2. Talbot Urban Separator _ J t SW 41st sal J \l 1MIt11e '. Nair 1 r"��1 ILRI Se SIM pin itri IA 1 ...v., . . ... ,,,-,,,,.. •.• . .. it ...„, f�'"�r3//► S 4.a►St i—*A111". �11�� El ffri - .; �A 1 mil ,,.....h.., ,. WM ltil I[__ ii, % ra R11 7,4„ , ilfr swim 4 41 � Li i D 4101110. AMIli or tom a� T�til�� ilr �� 1uf��1-n1t•r7: 111.3 kili 1 10111111161P111111111114-1 Elkitt:fttla Rani 5'2' IMO!!�n1■�r �t�RaJ....-"ala�11 �7 Alleit AI IIIItii 1I'i�r�� s i ��i:7 NIG hbVilV-1.rear,tialtit) ... kaiii -'.\:, 1 l am'/s :L1inso AIM am , t. 11111111111:411 I Mimi Emir"II 1.MI k-- MI ow a 4,r��■r,I, um \ S 55th St 1 � - Il iirr,#t1� 1111 -Unitib to ,rte. ,■l .au�� align tt�i .11,�� ill: • 1 1 !1iF iir acs p �-�l��rsa �2 r\ ,■ ..n al41�ff 1 ■ura an la. !_, a'j ��: maw i= Allii= 111 moit . _ i�MIM� _�mi ha ---Ein Iffilirior lirdissiiii � 111 ';� s a am NM El -J L'A INrill 1 I am �i■■i■fib '- J a Millimill„ -4 miuliskyr4 Ton 16, .. P. i1 :: ;n I ..11 ■i�4iltioiiiiwalk 1PTLJIV;!%. .1 K,.,.JRar ■ muni oMilt kb i 14Vr 11�11 4 111! f 111 a V. ■��i ii� 111 II vtair:um. 3 t_m low sams,, ilk = idd Talbot Urban Separator .! 't' Eooawme Development Neighborhoods&SammyFlammRoom COLimits dPococknd� nr Urban Separator i3oungary 4/ ►,c PocockG tki Rosaio r' ati c X04arx � aa 4S 6 ORDINANCE NO. D. ADMINISTRATION: w 1. Review Process: Applications subject to Urban Separator Regulations shall be processed as a component of the governing land use process. 2. Authority: The Reviewing Official shall have the authority to approve with conditions, or deny proposals based on the provisions of the Urban Separator Overlay Regulations. E. URBAN SEPARATOR OVERLAY REGULATIONS: 1. Contiguous Open Space Corridor Established. A designated contiguous open space corridor is established as shown on the Urban Separators Overlay Map in Section 4-3-110.J. 2. Dedication of Open Space Required. a. Approval of a plat, and/or building permit on an undeveloped legal lot in Nifty the Urban Separator Overlay shall require dedication of 50% of the gross land area of the parcel or parcels as a non-revocable open space tract retained by property owner,or dedicated to a homeowners association or other suitable organization as determined by the Reviewing Official. Acreage in tracts may include critical areas and/or critical area buffers. At a minimum, open space shall be connected to another contiguous open space parcel by a fifty foot(50')corridor. b. Existing residences, existing accessory uses and structures, existing above ground utilities located in the tract at the time of designation and new small and medium utilities shall not count toward the 50%gross land area calculation except for storm water ponds designed with less than 3:1 engineered slopes and enhanced per techniques and landscape requirements set forth in the publication the"Integrated Pond"King County Land and Water Resources Division. Name 7 ORDINANCE NO. c. Approval of a building permit for an addition of 300 square feet for Ned primary use structure or 500 square feet for an accessory structure shall require dedication of a conservation easement, protective easement or tract and deed restriction pursuant to Section 4-3- 050.G, Native Growth Protection Areas, on critical areas and critical area buffers located within the Contiguous Open Space Corridor. d. Land dedicated as open space shall be located within the mapped Contiguous Open Space Corridor unless a modification is approved pursuant to Section 4-3- 110.B.6. 3. Uses Allowed In Contiguous Open Space. a. Passive Recreation with no development of active recreation facilities except within a municipal park. b. Natural surface pedestrian trails. c. Animal husbandry(small, medium and large)provided that fencing is subject to the conditions in 4-3-110.E.3.g, below. d. Existing residences and accessory uses and structures. e. Small and medium utilities and large underground utilities. f. Access Easements. (1) Utilities easements and emergency service access roads may be located within Contiguous Open Space Corridors for the limited purpose of providing service to parcels platted after March 2005, for which there is no practical alternative way to provide service. Utilities and emergency service easements shall be developed with permeable surface treatment. 4410 8 ORDINANCE NO. (2) Private access easements for ingress and egress may be located within *ow Contiguous Open Space in the limited instance where there is no alternative access to a pre- existing legal lot, but shall not serve lots platted after March 2005. g. Fencing or similar structures and/or hedges or similar landscape features on portions of properties abutting and within the Contiguous Open Space Corridor shall not create a solid barrier. Where required to protect wetlands pursuant to Section 4-3-050.M.7.c, fencing shall be the minimum necessary. 4. Uses in Portions of the Urban Separator Outside the Established Contiguous Open Space Corridor. a. Uses shall be consistent with Section 4-2-060 and 4-2-070.B. Residential-1 Zone, one dwelling unit per net acre. b. Development shall be clustered outside the Contiguous Open Space Now Corridor mapped in 2-3-110.J. 5. Standards Within Entire Urban Separator. a. Forest/vegetation clearing shall be limited to a maximum of 35%of the gross acreage of the site except: (1) The percentage of forest/vegetation coverage may be increased to qualify for the density bonus allowed in Section 4-2-110.D. (2) The Reviewing Official may modify the percentage of forest/vegetation retention if determined necessary to meet the surface water retention/detention standards of Section 4-3-110.E.7. (3) The Reviewing Official may approve forest/vegetation clearing greater than 35% of individual building sites to allow grading for a home site provided that 9 ORDINANCE NO. (i) A Iandscape plan is provided for each building site showing ,40004 compensating re-planting of species with the same or better water retention and erosion control functions. (ii) 5%additional replacement landscaping per site is provided (iii) Plant caliper is determined by the Reviewing Official to be sufficient to achieve needed water retention and erosion control functions, and (iv) Individual trees or stands of trees are retained when feasible. Feasibility is defined as locations and tree health sufficient to ensure continued viability of the tree and safety of structures within the developed portion of the lot and (v) The landscape plan provides massing of plant material to create either a connection to required open space or is of sufficient size to create functional wildlife habitat. b. If the existing cleared area of a site, as of March 21, 2005 is greater than 35%, approval of a plat shall require re-planting of forest/vegetative cover. c. Forest/vegetation cover may include a combination of Northwest native vegetation including conifer, deciduous trees and shrubs sufficient to provide water retention and erosion control, as determined appropriate by the Reviewing Official. The Reviewing Official shall determine whether existing vegetation provides functions to meet forest/vegetation coverage standards, and shall require additional plantings if existing vegetation is found to be insufficient. d. Stormwater management shall comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual Conservation Flow Control Area Level 2 flow control standards. *4010 10 ORDINANCE NO. e. Private access easements and improvements shall be established at Norse the minimum standard needed to meet public safety requirements. f. Landscape plans required in Section 4-4-070 shall include retention/re-planting plans as applicable, consistent with standards and plant lists in King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water and Land Resources Division Publication "Going Native." 6. Modification of Mapped Contiguous Open Space. The Reviewing Official may modify the open space configuration where: a. Site specific data confirms that the adopted Contiguous Open Space Corridor map includes more than the required gross area for any parcel, or b. The applicant can demonstrate a configuration of contiguous open space that provides better or equal provision of the open space requirement. Modifications to the Nov Contiguous Open Space Corridor shall be re-mapped during the City's annual Title IV review process. SECTION IV. Section 4-4-040.B of Chapter 4, City-Wide Property Development Standards, of Title IV(Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled"Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows: B. APPLICABILITY. The provisions and conditions of this Section regulating height are not applicable to fences or barriers required by state law or by the zoning provisions of the Code to surround and enclose public safety installations, school grounds, public playgrounds, private or public swimming pools and similar installations and improvements. Fences, and hedges within the Urban Separator Overlay are also subject to requirements of the Urban Separator Overlay Regulations(see Section 4-3-110). softie 11 ORDINANCE NO. SECTION V. Section 4-4-130.0 of Chapter 4, City-Wide Property Development ,4100 Standards, of Title IV(Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled"Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows. C. ALLOWABLE TREE CUTTING ACTIVITIES. Tree cutting and associated use of mechanical equipment is permitted as follows, except as provided in subsection D.2 of this Section, restrictions for Critical Areas, and in Section 4-3- 110.E.5.b, Urban Separator Overlay Regulations. 1. Emergency Situations: Removal of trees and/or ground cover by the City and/or public or private utility in emergency situations involving immediate danger to life or property, substantial fire hazards, or interruption of services provided by a utility. 2. Dead, Dangerous, or Diseased Trees: Removal of dead,terminally diseased, damaged, or dangerous ground cover or trees which have been certified as such by a forester, registered landscape architect, or certified arborist, selection of which to be approved by the City based on the type of information required, or the City prior to their removal. 3. Maintenance Activities/Essential Tree Removal—Public or Private Utilities, Roads and Public Parks: Maintenance activities including routine vegetation management and essential tree removal for public and private utilities, road rights-of-way and easements, and parks. 4. Installation of SEPA Exempt Public or Private Utilities: Installation of distribution lines by public and private utilities provided that such activities are categorically exempt from the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act and RMC 4-9-070, Environmental Review Procedures. 12 ORDINANCE NO. 5. Existing and Ongoing Agricultural Activities: Clearing associated with existing Nor and ongoing agricultural activities as defined in chapter 4-11 RMC, Definitions. 6. Commercial Nurseries or Tree Farms: Clearing or cutting of only those trees which are planted and growing on the premises of a licensed retailer or wholesaler. 7. Public Road Expansion: Expansion of public roads. 8. Site Investigative Work: Site investigative work necessary for land use application submittals such as surveys, soil logs, percolation tests, and other related activities including the use of mechanical equipment to perform site investigative work provided the work is conducted in accordance with the following requirements. a. Investigative work should not disturb any more than five percent (5%)of any protected sensitive area described in subsection D.2 of this Section, Restrictions for Critical Areas, on the subject property. In every case impacts shall be minimized and disturbed areas Nik—w restored. b. In every location where site investigative work is conducted, disturbed areas shall be minimized, and immediately restored. c. A notice shall be posted on the site by the property owner or owner's agent indicating that site investigative work is being conducted, and that the work must minimize disturbance to the critical areas identified in subsection D.2 of this Section,Restrictions for Critical Areas. d. No site investigative work shall commence without first notifying the Director or designee in advance. w 13 ORDINANCE NO. 9. Allowable Minor Tree Cutting Activities: Tree cutting and associated use of mechanical equipment is permitted as follows, except as provided in subsection D2 of this Section, Restrictions for Critical Areas: a. On a developed lot or on a partially developed lot less than one-half(1/2) of an acre any number of trees may be removed; b. On a partially developed lot greater than one-half(1/2)of an acre or on an undeveloped lot provided that: 1. No more than three(3)trees are removed in any twelve(12) month period from a property under thirty five thousand (35,000) square feet in size; and ii. No more than six(6)trees are removed in any twelve(12)month period from a property over thirty five thousand (35,000) square feet in size. LOT TYPES 11111110 a PARTIALLY DEVELOPED UNDEVELOPED L t iii. Rights-of-Way Unobstructed: In conducting minor tree cutting activities, rights-of-way shall not be obstructed. 10. Landscaping or Gardening Permitted: Land clearing in conformance with the provisions of subsection C.9 of this Section, Allowable Tree Cutting Activities, and subsection D.2, Restrictions for Critical Areas, is permitted on a developed lot for purposes of landscaping or gardening. Land clearing in conformance with the provisions of subsection C.9, Allowable Minor Tree Cutting Activities, and subsection D.2, Restrictions for Critical Areas, is permitted 14 ORDINANCE NO. on a partially developed or undeveloped lot for purposes of landscaping or gardening provided that no mechanical equipment is used. 11. Operational Mining/Quarrying: Land clearing and tree cutting associated with previously approved, operational mining and quarrying activities. 12. Modification of Existing Utilities and Streets(not otherwise exempted by RMC 4- 3-050.C.7)by Ten Percent (10%)or Less: Overbuilding(enlargement beyond existing project needs) or replacement and/or rehabilitation of existing streets, provided the work does not increase the footprint of the structure, line or street by more than ten percent(10%)within the critical area and/or buffer areas. SECTION VI. Section 4-6-030.F of Chapter 6, Street and Utility Standards, of Title IV(Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled"Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows: Noise F. DRAINAGE PLAN DESIGN CRITERIA, DRAFTING STANDARDS AND CONTENTS: The drainage plan shall be prepared in conformance with the Department's construction plan drafting standards and contents, the City's Standard Specifications for Municipal Construction and Standard Detail documents, and the design criteria, construction materials, practices and standard details contained in chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the current King County Surface water design manual;provided that the Department's standards and design criteria will take precedence and prevail in any interpretation of conflicting contradictory standards and design criteria, and provided that within designated Urban Separators regulated in Section 4-4- 110,the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual Conservation Flow Control Area Level 2 flow control standards are required. 15 ORDINANCE NO. SECTION VI. Section 4-11-150.0 of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV Nisoi (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended by adding the following definition of Open Space, Contiguous, Urban Separator,to read as follows: Open Space, Contiguous, Urban Separator: Land permanently set aside as open space located in recorded tracts. Contiguous open space lands may include critical areas, such as wetlands and steep slopes, and wetland buffers, as well as stormwater ponds enhanced per the techniques and landscape requirements set forth in The Integrated Pond, King County Water and Land Resources Division. SECTION VII. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2005. NoliO Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2005. Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: 16 Exhibit A 4-2-110A DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS Nob, (Primary and Attached Accessory Structures) RC R-1 R-4 R-8 DENSITY(Net Density in Dwelling Units per Net Acre) Minimum None None None 4 dwelling units Housing Density per net acre1.2 for proposed short plats or subdivisions Maximum 1 dwelling unit 1 dwelling unit per 4 dwelling units 88 dwelling units Housing Density2 per 10 net 1 net acre except per 1 net acre per 1 net acre acre that in designated Urban Separators, density of up to 1 unit per gross acre may be permitted subject to conditions in RMC 4-3-110 Urban Separator Overlay . NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS PER LOT Maximum 1 dwelling with 1 dwelling unit 1 dwelling unit 1 dwelling unit Number per legal 1 accessory lot2 unit LOT DIMENSIONS Nifty, Minimum Lot 10 acres 1 acre 8,000 sq. ft.".73 4,500 sq.ft.for Size for lots 10,000 sq. ft.for except where parcels greater created after small lot than 1 acre. November 10, duster menta dusters10 are 2004 allowed, R-8 5,000 sq. ft.for standards shall parcels 1 acre or apply. less. Minimum Lot 150 ft.for 75 ft.for interior 70 ft.for interior 50 ft.for interior Width for lots interior lots. lots. lots. 80 ft.for lots. created after corner lots.1 .'3 November 10, 175 ft.for 85 ft.for corner except where 60 ft.for corner 2004 corner lots. lots. small lot lots Except for clusters10 are clustered allowed, R-8 development standards shall within designated apply. Urban Separators R-4 standards shall apply for both interior and corner lots. Minimum Lot 200 ft. 85 ft. 80 ft." 13 except 65 ft. Depth for tots where small lot created after dusters10 are November 10, allowed, R-8 Now 2004 standards shall apply. Page 1 of 5 Exhibit A RC R-1 R-4 R-8 SETBACKS' Nied Minimum Front 30 ft.b 30 ft.b 30 ft.'`'r3 except 15 ft.for primary Yard where small lot structure. clusters10 are allowed, R-8 20 ft.for attached standards shall garages accessed apply. from front or side Unit with Alley yard street. Access Unit with Alley Garage: The Access Garage: front yard set- The front yard back of the set-back of the primary primary structure structure may may be reduced be reduced to to 10 ft. if all 20 ft.if all parking is parking is provided in the provided in the rear yard of the lot rear yard of the with access from lot with access a public right-of- from a public way or alley.6 right-of-way or alley.6 Minimum Side 30 ft! 20 ft! 20 flu'1iexcept 15 ft.'for the Yard Along a where small lot primary structure Street clusters10 are and 20 ft.for the allowed, 15 ft. is attached garages allowed. which access from the front and side yard along a street. Minimum Side 25 ft. 15 ft. 15 combined 5 ft. Yard ft.12�13• are allowed with a minimum of 5 ft. for any side yard, except where small lot clusters t0 are allowed, 5 ft. Page 2 of 5 Exhibit A RC R-1 R-4 R-8 'fir SETBACKS4 (Continued) Minimum Rear 35 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 20 ft. Yard Where small lot clusters10 are allowed, 20 ft. Clear Vision Area In no case shall In no case shall In no case shall In no case shall a a structure over a structure over a structure over structure over 42 42 in. in height 42 in. in height 42 in. in height in. in height intrude into the intrude into the intrude into the intrude into the 20 ft.dear 20 ft.dear 20 ft. clear 20 ft. Gear vision vision area vision area vision area area defined in defined in RMC defined in RMC defined in RMC RMC 4-11-030. 4-11-030. 4-11-030. 4-11-030. Minimum 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. landscaped Freeway landscaped landscaped landscaped setback from the Frontage Setback setback from the setback from the setback from the street property street property street property street property line. line. line. line. BUILDING STANDARDS Maximum 2 stories and 30 2 stories and 30 2 stories and 30 2 stories and 30 Building Height ft. ft. ft.for standard ft. and Number of roof. Stories,except for uses having a 2 stories and 35 • "Public Suffix"(P) ft.for roofs designations having a pitch greater than 3/12. Maximum Height See RMC 4-4- See RMC 4-4- See RMC 4-4- See RMC 4-4- for Wireless 140G. 140G. 140G. 140G. Communication Facilities Now Page 3 of 5 Exhibit A RC R-1 R-4 R-8 BUILDING STANDARDS (Continued) Maximum Lots 5 acres or 35%. Lots greater Lots 5,000 sq.ft. Building more: 2%. An than 5,000 sq. or greater: 35% Coverage additional 5% of ft.: 35% or or 2,500 sq.ft., (Including primary the total area 2,500 sq. ft., whichever is and accessory may be used for whichever is greater. buildings) agricultural greater. buildings. Lots less than Lots 10,000 sq. Lots 5,000 sq. 5,000 sq.ft.: ft. or less: 50% ft.to 5 acres: 50%. 15%. On lots greater than 1 acre, an additional 5% of the total area may be used for agricultural buildings. Lots 10,000 sq. ft.or less: 35%. Vertical Façade All dwelling units Modulation shall provide vertical facade modulation at least every twenty horizontal feet (20), including front,side and rear facades when visible from a street. Page 4 of 5 Exhibit A RC R-1 R-4 R-8 `cure LANDSCAPING AND OPEN SPACE Minimum Off- 5 ft.wide irrigated 5 ft. wide irrigated Site or drought or drought Landscaping resistant resistant Abutting Non- landscape strip landscape strip Arterial Public provided that if provided that if Streets for Plats there is additional there is additional and Short Plants undeveloped right undeveloped right Submitted on or of way in excess of way in excess after November of 5 ft,this shall of 5 ft,this shall 10, 2004 also be also be landscaped. landscaped. Minimum Off- 10 ft.wide 10 ft.wide Site irrigated or irrigated or Landscaping drought resistant drought resistant Abutting landscape strip landscape strip Principal, provided that if provided that if Minor and there is additional there is additional Collector undeveloped right undeveloped right Arterial Streets of way in excess of way in excess for Plats and of 10 ft.,this shall of 10 ft.,this shall Short Plants also be also be Submitted on or landscaped, landscaped, after November unless otherwise unless otherwise 10, 2004 determined by the determined by reviewing official the reviewing '404.0yduring the official during the subdivision subdivision process. process. Minimum On or At least two (2) At least two (2) Off-Site Street trees of a City- trees of a City- Tree approved species approved species Requirements with a minimum with a minimum for Plats and caliper of 1 'A"per caliper of 1 'A2" Short Plants tree shall be per tree shall be Submitted on or planted in the planted in the after November front yard or front yard or 10, 2004 planting strip of planting strip of every lot prior to every lot prior to occupancy. occupancy. Now Page 5 of 5 / t,t1 6u4-01..44-4.-- 371/2-1/ w 4L14 4.-- 31 -1/ 05 From: Julie Brewer To: Council News Date: 3/10/2005 2:41:31 PM Subject: Fwd: Renton School Good News FYI -from the Renton School District-Julie >>> "Randy Matheson" <randy.matheson@renton.wednet.edu>3/10/2005 2:34:33 PM >>> Below are good news announcements read by Renton School Board members at last night's meeting. Please consider sharing these with others at a City Council meeting. Randy Matheson Executive Director, Community Relations Renton School District 425.204.2345 rmatheson@renton.wednet.edu "GOOD NEWS"ANNOUNCEMENTS March 9, 2005 *Three members of the Renton High School Speech and Debate team have qualified to compete at the National Forensic League tournament in Philadelphia in mid-June. Students representing Renton are: Emanuel Russell and Sharelle Johnson in Duo Interpretation and Rihana Saucier in Dramatic Interpretation. Additionally, three alternates were also selected: Baillie Brown in Humorous Interpretation and Jamilia Tyler and La'Terria Powell in Duo Interpretation. Ten students from the Renton team will compete at the State Forensic Tournament, this weekend at University of Puget Sound. * More than 300 students at Nelsen Middle School have qualified for induction in the National Junior Honor Society. The school has scheduled an induction ceremony on April 6. To qualify, students must maintain a 3.5 G.P.A and a mark of 3.5 in citizenship from their teachers. *The Renton Early Childhood Education Assistance Program (ECEAP) is one of only three programs in the Puget Sound area selected as an example site. Recently, teachers from other ECEAP centers were bussed here to view Renton's two ECEAP classes as models to follow. One of the areas of interest is Renton's ability to deliver exceptional services to our children even as state funding for ECEAP decreases. ECEAP is an early childhood education program funded by the state designed to help local four-year-olds succeed in school and beyond. * Five Renton High School students have been nominated for the 2005 Diversity Makes a Difference awards presented by the Northwest Asian Weekly Foundation. Renton high seniors Hong-Yen Chau, Sydnee Goodrich, Donald Hoang, Dasha Li and Judy Li were nominated for the award by Renton high counselor Barbara Fujita. The awards recognize students who exemplify diversity by participating in activities outside of their own ethnic community.The top five winners of the awards receive a$1,000 scholarship.Winners will be announced at a banquet on March 25. *The district's curriculum department has secured a Boeing grant worth nearly$25,000.The money will be used to revise the sixth-grade science curriculum, align the curriculum with state standards, purchase and field test inquiry-based science materials in the classroom, and provide teachers with training opportunities. * High school students throughout the district recently competed in the Soundview Region Solo & Ensemble Contest hosted by Renton High School. Over 350 young musicians from districts in the Soundview League competed to have a chance to attend the State Solo and Ensemble Music Festival in April. Many students from Renton's comprehensive high schools won their categories or placed as first alternates, and will represent the district in the state competition. * Renton School District students and staff raised more than $3,000 for the Salvation Army during the Christmas fundraising event. Volunteers from the district staffed the red kettles in front of local businesses and encouraged their classmates and coworkers to come by and donate. The money will be used through Salvation Army efforts to better the lives of Renton families. * Maplewood Heights Elementary students will be visited by Adam Pfeifle, a medic in the Army who just returned from Iraq. Adam is interested in sharing his experiences with Maplewood students to let them know about school children in that country.Adam is related to several people who attended high school with Maplewood Principal Judy Busch. *Lakeridge Elementary School third grade teacher Kim LaBorde has been selected for the 2005 edition of Who's Who Among America's Teachers. About five percent of the nation's elementary school teachers are selected each year for inclusion in the publication. *Cascade Elementary School recently hosted a multi-cultural Read Aloud event thanks to a grant from Page Ahead. Parents and community members read a story, in their native language, to students throughout the school. At the end of the day, students were able to choose a book to take home. The grant provides three free books for each student to take home. Page Ahead is a non-profit organization that promotes reading activities and provides new books for children to enrich their lives and strengthen communities.